Source: The Hindustan Times  

Introduction 

In recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court overturned its own conviction of a man for murder after discovering he was a juvenile at the time of the offense. Despite the claim being raised two decades after the crime and after final conviction, the Court noted that juvenility claims can be made at any stage of legal proceedings, establishing a significant precedent in juvenile justice. 

What was the Background of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramji Lal Sharma & Another ? 

Background  

• The case originated from an FIR filed on 17th January, 2002, at Police Station AJK Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. 
• The charges were filed under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempted murder), and 34 (acts done by several persons with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 
• In the original trial  the Special Judge at Bhind convicted the accused on 24th February, 2006, sentencing them to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000. 
• The convicted persons appealed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court acquitted them on 13th December, 2018. 
• The State then appealed to the Supreme Court. On 9th March, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's acquittal and restored the original conviction and sentence. 
• After this, one of the accused, Brijnandan alias Brajesh Sharma, filed an application claiming he was a juvenile (under 18 years old) at the time of the offense. 
• There were discrepancies in the accused's date of birth - school records showed 4th October, 1984, while his Aadhaar card showed 10th March, 1984. 
• The Supreme Court ordered the Sessions Court, Bhind, to conduct an inquiry into the juvenility claim. The inquiry involved examining the accused, his mother, and the head teacher at his school. 

Court Observation: 

• The Supreme Court upheld the claim of juvenility made by the applicant (Brijnandan alias Brajesh Sharma). 
• The Court set aside the conviction previously recorded against the applicant in Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2022. 
• The Court formally acquitted the applicant based on his proven juvenile status at the time of the offense. 
• The Court cancelled the applicant's bail bonds, as he was already on interim bail pursuant to the order dated 16th May, 2024. 
• The Court accepted the Sessions Judge's report which established the applicant's date of birth as October 4, 1984, making him a juvenile (17 years, 3 months, and 13 days old) at the time of the offense on 17th January, 2002. 
• The Court allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the applicant seeking relief on grounds of juvenility. 
  • The Court overruled the State's objections regarding the belated filing of the juvenility claim and discrepancies in the applicant's name across different documents. 
  • The Court affirmed that an application claiming juvenility can be made even after the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has attained finality. 

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 

Section 9 of the act deals with Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this Act 

• Regarding Magistrates Not Empowered Under the Act: 
  • Any Magistrate who is not empowered to exercise Board powers must immediately record their opinion if they believe an accused person is a child 
  • The Magistrate must forward both the child and all proceeding records to the appropriate Board without delay 
  • This creates an immediate transfer mechanism to ensure juvenile cases reach proper authorities 
• Regarding Claims of Juvenility in Other Courts: 
  • Claims of juvenility can be made before any court, not just juvenile courts 
  • Such claims can be raised by:  
    • The accused person themselves  
    • The court's own observation 
  • The claim applies to:  
    • Current status as a child 
    • Status as a child at the time of the alleged offense 
• Court's Responsibility in Age Determination: 
  • Courts must conduct a proper inquiry when juvenility is claimed 
  • They must gather necessary evidence, excluding affidavits 
  • They must record a specific finding stating the person's age as accurately as possible 
• Timing of Juvenility Claims: 
  • Claims can be raised at any stage of proceedings 
  • Claims remain valid even after final case disposal 
  • Claims can be made even if the person has ceased to be a child 
  • Claims remain valid even if the person turned 18 before the Act commenced 
• Procedure After Finding of Juvenility: 
  • If a court finds an offender was a child at the time of the offense:  
    • The person must be forwarded to the Board  
    • The Board will pass appropriate orders  
    • Any sentence already passed by the court becomes void 
• Protective Custody During Inquiry: 
  • If custody is required while investigating a juvenility claim 
  • The person can be placed in a "place of safety" 
  • This is a temporary measure during the inquiry period 
• Evidence Requirements: 
  • Evidence must be substantive, not just affidavits 
  • The inquiry must be thorough and proper 
  • The age determination must be as accurate as possible 
• Jurisdiction Transfer: 
  • Regular courts must transfer jurisdiction to the Juvenile Justice Board 
  • This applies once juvenility is established 
  • The transfer is mandatory, not discretionary 

Relevant Case Law 

Ashok v. State of Madhya Pradesh,(2020) 

• A person convicted of murder in 1999 (for a 1997 incident) and sentenced to life imprisonment claimed juvenility for the first time in the Supreme Court, stating he was only 16 years old at the time of the offense, despite his appeal being previously dismissed by the High Court in 2017. 
• While acknowledging that juvenility claims can be made at any stage of legal proceedings, the Supreme Court noted discrepancies in the documentation of the petitioner's birth date between school and Gram Panchayat certificates. 
• Based on the Trial Court's initial recording of the petitioner's age as 16 years and his custody exceeding the maximum juvenile sentence of three years, the Supreme Court granted interim bail and ordered a fresh examination of the juvenility claim by the Sessions Court. 

Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar,2024 

• A case reached the Supreme Court where the High Court had rejected a plea of juvenility without proper inquiry, despite the accused raising the claim at the earliest opportunity. 
• The Supreme Court found both the Trial Court and High Court had erred by not adequately addressing the appellant's claim of being a juvenile at the time of the offense. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 provides a comprehensive mechanism to consider juvenility claims, which can be raised at any stage of legal proceedings, even after final case disposal. 
• The Supreme Court directed the Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga to conduct a thorough inquiry into the appellant's age/date of birth following the procedures outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and its associated rules. 

Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal, (2012)  

• The issue of raising juvenility claims in criminal proceedings.  
• It came before the Supreme Court of India to resolve conflicting judgments on when such claims could be raised and what evidence could be considered. 
• The Supreme Court held that a claim of juvenility can indeed be raised at any stage of criminal proceedings, even after final conviction.  
• The Court emphasized that the essence of juvenile justice laws is to protect children, and therefore, technical objections should not prevent the consideration of such claims.  
• The Court also noted that while documentary evidence is preferred, oral evidence and medical examinations can be considered in the absence of conclusive documents. 

Conclusion  

This ruling reinforces that juvenile rights are paramount in India's legal system and cannot be compromised by procedural delays or technicalities. The judgment not only protected one individual's rights but also set a powerful precedent that courts must carefully consider any evidence of juvenility, even after conviction and sentencing, ensuring that justice for juveniles remains accessible regardless of timing.