NDLI: Karan @ Fatiya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	JJ act 2015 ossification test convicted under IPC and POCSO Act death sentence Claim of Juvenility
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – Claim of Juvenility – Appellant convicted for various offences under IPC and POCSO Act was awarded death sentence – Death sentence affirmed by High Court – During the pendency of the present appeals, appellant claimed juvenility – Trial Court was directed to submit report after due inquiry – Report submitted, appellant’s date of birth was found to be conclusively proved as 25.07.2002 – Date of incident being 15.12.2017, the appellant was aged 15 years 04 months and 20 days on the date of the incident – Held: No reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court regarding the date of birth of the appellant – Appellant held to be aged 15 years, 4 months and 20 days on the date of the incident – Conviction of the appellant upheld, sentence set aside – Appellant being less than 16 years on the date of commission of the offence, the maximum punishment that could be awarded is upto 3 years – However, appellant has already undergone incarceration of more than 5 years – Incarceration beyond 3 years would be illegal – Appellant to be released from judicial custody – Impugned judgement passed by High Court modified – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 363, 376(2)(i), 302, 201 – POCSO Act – s. 5(m)/6.Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – s. 94 – Ossification test – Plea of the State that the appellant be subjected to an ossification test for determining his correct age as the documents filed during the inquiry before the Trial Court were not covered u/s. 94 – Held: Rejected – First preference for determination of age is the birth certificate issued by the school or a matriculation certificate – It is in the absence of the first category of documents that the birth certificate from the municipal corporation is to be considered – An ossification test comes into play when the documents are not available under the first and second columns – In the instant case, appellant’s birth certificate from the school (a government primary school) was available – It has been duly proved in the inquiry before the Trial Court, no reason to doubt its correctness – Further, an ossification test only gives a broad assessment of the age – It does not give an exact age – There is an element of margin of plus or minus 1 to 2 years – Thus, in the present case, even if ossification test is permitted, it will have no bearing on the assessment made by the Trial Court after the inquiry.Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – s. 9 – Plea of Juvenility – Held: Can be raised before any Court and at any stage even after the case has been finally decided – The claim so made would be determined even if such person has seized to be a child whether on or before the commencement of 2015 Act. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – s. 18 – Held: Juvenile Justice Board having found a child to be in conflict with law who may have committed a petty or serious offence and where heinous offence is committed, the child should be below 16 years, can pass various orders u/clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) and also sub-section (2) – Whatever punishment is to be provided, the same cannot exceed a period of three years. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – s. 9(3) – Accused held to be a juvenile after conviction at the stage of appeal, status of the trial, conviction and sentence recorded – Held: A trial conducted and conviction recorded by the Sessions Court would not be held to be vitiated in law even though subsequently the person tried has been held to be a child – Intention of the legislature was to give benefit to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of the offence only with respect to its sentence part – It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the 2015 Act would be attracted – Any sentence in excess of what is permissible under the 2015 Act will have to be accordingly amended as per the provisions of the 2015 Act – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – s. 7A.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 197
Petitioner	Karan @ Fatiya
Respondent	The State Of Madhya Pradesh
SCR	[2023] 2 S.C.R. 587
Judgement Date	2023-03-03
Case Number	572

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Karan @ Fatiya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

Dattatraya @ Datta Ambo Rokade Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Jodhbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Sarveshwar Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nandu @ Nandua

Nand Kishore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of U.p.

Ramashraya Chakravart Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Karan @ Fatiya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Karan @ Fatiya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

Dattatraya @ Datta Ambo Rokade Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Jodhbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Sarveshwar Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nandu @ Nandua

Nand Kishore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of U.p.

Ramashraya Chakravart Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Karan @ Fatiya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh