Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 2411/2011)
OM PRAKASH ..Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. ..Respondents
J U D G E M E N T
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.
1. The Judgment and order dated 19.08.2010
passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in
SBCRR No.597 of 2009 is under challenge in this appeal at
the instance of the appellant Om Prakash who is a hapless
father of an innocent girl of 13 ½ years who was subjected
to rape by the alleged accused-Respondent No.2 Vijay
1Page 2
Kumar @ Bhanwroo who has been allowed to avail the
benefit of protection under Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act 2000, although the courts below
could not record a finding that he, in fact, was a
juvenile since he had not attained the age of 18 years on the
date of incident. Hence this Special Leave Petition in which
leave has been granted after condoning the delay.
2. Thus the questions inter alia which require
consideration in this appeal are:-
(i) whether the respondent/accused herein
who is alleged to have committed an offence of
rape under Section 376 IPC and other allied
sections along with a co-accused who already
stands convicted for the offence under Section 376
IPC, can be allowed to avail the benefit of protection
to a juvenile in order to refer him for trial to a
juvenile court under the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (shortly referred to
as the ‘Juvenile Justice Act’) although the trial court
and the High Court could not record a conclusive
finding of fact that the respondent-accused was
below the age of 18 years on the date of the
incident?
(ii) whether the principle and benefit of
‘benevolent legislation’ relating to Juvenile Justice
Act could be applied in cases where two views
regarding determination of the age of child/accused
2Page 3
was possible and the so-called child could not be
held to be a juvenile on the basis of evidence
adduced?
(iii) whether medical evidence and other
attending circumstances would be of any value and
assistance while determining the age of a juvenile, if
the academic record certificates do not conclusively
prove the age of the accused ?
(iv) whether reliance should be placed on
medical evidence if the certificates relating to
academic records is deliberately with held in order
to conceal the age of the accused and authenticity of
the medical evidence regarding the age is under
challenge?
3. Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable
object of providing a separate forum or a special court for
holding trial of children/juvenile by the juvenile court as it
was felt that children become delinquent by force of
circumstance and not by choice and hence they need to be
treated with care and sensitivity while dealing and trying
cases involving criminal offence. But when an accused is
alleged to have committed a heinous offence like rape and
murder or any other grave offence when he ceased to be a
child on attaining the age of 18 years, but seeks protection
of the Juvenile Justice Act under the ostensible plea of
3Page 4
being a minor, should such an accused be allowed to be
tried by a juvenile court or should he be referred to a
competent court of criminal jurisdiction where the trial of
other adult persons are held.
4. The questions referred to hereinbefore arise in
this appeal under the facts and circumstances emerging
from the materials on record which disclose that the
appellant/complainant lodged a written report on 23.5.2007
at about 1.00 p.m. that his daughter Sandhya aged about
13
1/2
years a student of class IX at Secondary School
Ghewada was called from the school by the accused
Bhanwaru @ Vijay Kumar, son of Joga Ram through her
friend named Neetu on 23.2.2007 at about 1.00 p.m. in the
afternoon. Neetu told Sandhya that Bhanwroo was in the
Bolero vehicle near the bus stand. Sandhya left the school
after taking permission from the school authorities and
when she reached near the bus stand she did not find the
Bolero vehicle. She therefore, made a telephonic call to
Bhanwru who told her that he was standing at Tiwri Road
4Page 5
ahead of bus stand. She then noticed the Bolero vehicle on
Tiwri Road, but she did not find Neetu and when she
enquired about Neetu, the accused Bhanwroo @ Vijay
Kumar son of Joga Ram misguided her and told her that
Neetu had got down to go to the toilet after which she was
made to sit in the vehicle which was forcibly driven
towards Tiwri and after a distance of 3-4 Km., a person
named Subhash Bishnoi was also made to sit in the
vehicle. The vehicle was then taken to a lonely place off the
road where heinous physical assault of rape was committed
on her by Bhanwroo @ Vijay Kumar and Subhash Bishnoi.
Since the victim girl/the petitioner’s daughter resisted and
opposed, she was beaten as a result of which she sustained
injuries on her thigh, hand and back. She was then taken
towards the village Chandaliya and she was again
subjected to rape. Bhanwru then received a phone call
after which Bhanwru and Subhash dropped her near the
village Ghewada but threatened her that in case she
disclosed about this event to anyone, she will be killed.
Sandhya, therefore, did not mention about this incident
5Page 6
to anyone in the school but on reaching home, she
disclosed it to her mother i.e. the appellant’s/complainant’s
wife who in turn narrated it to the appellant when he came
back to village from Jodhpur on 24.2.2007. The appellant
could not take an immediate decision keeping in view the
consequences of the incident and called his brother Piyush
from Jodhpur and then lodged a report with the P.S. Osian
on the basis of which a case was registered under Section
365, 323 and 376 IPC bearing C.R.No. 40/2007 dated
25.2.2007. In course of the investigation, the accused
Bhanwru @ Vijay Kumar was arrested and in the arrest
memo his name was mentioned as Vijay Kumar @ Bhanwar
Lal son of Joga Ram and his age has been mentioned as 19
years. After completion of the investigation, it was found
that the offences under Sections 363, 366, 323 and 376 (2)
(g) IPC were made out against the accused Vijay Kumar @
Bhanwar Lal, son of Joga Ram Jat aged 19 years, Subhash
son of Bagaram Bishnoi aged 20 years and against Smt.
Mukesh Kanwar @ Mugli @ Neetu aged 27 years and hence
charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate,
6Page 7
Osian. Vijay Kumar @ Bhanwar Lal and Subhash were
taken in judicial custody.
5. An application thereafter was moved on behalf of
the accused Vijay Kumar @ Bhanwar Lal before the Judicial
Magistrate, Osian stating that he was a juvenile offender
and, therefore, he may be sent to the Juvenile Court for
trial.
6. Arguments were heard on the aforesaid
application by the concerned learned magistrate on
29.3.2007 and the learned magistrate allowed the
application by his order dated 29.3.2007, although the
Public Prosecutor contested this application relying upon
the police investigation and the medical report wherein the
age of the accused was recorded as 19 years. In the
application, the stand taken on behalf of Vijay Kumar was
that in the school records, his date of birth was 30.6.1990.
7Page 8
7. However, contents of this application clearly
reveal that no dispute was raised in the application on
behalf of Vijay Kumar that the name of the accused Vijay
Kumar was only Vijay Kumar and not @ Bhanwar Lal. It
was also not urged that the name of accused Vijay Kumar
has been wrongly mentioned in the police papers as Vijay
Kumar @ Bhanwar Lal nor in course of investigation it
was evaer stated that the case was wrongly registered in
the name of accused Vijay Kumar @ Bhanwar Lal.
Without even raising this dispute, the academic record of
Vijay Kumar @ Bhanwar Lal was produced whereas
according to the complainant the factual position is that
the name of the accused was Bhanwar Lal which was
recorded in the Government Secondary School Jeloo Gagadi
(Osian) when he entered the school on 18.12.1993 and
again on 22.4.1996 his name was entered in the school
register wherein his date of birth was recorded as
12.12.1988
.
8Page 9
8. The complainant contested the age of the accused
Vijay Kumar and it was submitted that the accused Vijay
Kumar had been admitted in the 2
nd
Standard in some
private school known as Hari Om Shiksham Sansthan in
Jeloo Gagadi (Osian) with a changed name as Vijay Kumar
and there the date of birth was mentioned as 30.6.1990
which was reflected in the subsequent academic records
and on that basis the admission card in the name of Vijay
Kumar with date of birth as 30.6.1990 was mentioned in
the application for treating him as a juvenile.
9. The case then came up before the Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Tract No.I) Jodhpur as Sessions Case
No. 151/2007 on 3.10.2007. Shri Joga Ram, the father of
the accused moved an application under Section 49 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
stating that the date of birth of his son was 30.6.1990 in
his school administration record and, therefore, on the date
of incident i.e. 23.02.2007, he was less than 18 years.
In this application form dated 3.10.2007, Joga Ram,
9Page 10
father of the accused Vijay Kumar had himself stated at
three places i.e. title, para in the beginning and in the first
part describing the name of his son (accused) as Vijay
Kumar @ Bhanwar Lal stating that his son was born on
30.6.1990 at his house and he was first admitted in the
school named Hari Om Shikshan Sansthan, Jeloo Gagadi,
Osian on 1.9.1997 in 2
nd
standard and his son studied in
this school from 1.9.1997 to 15.7.2007 from 2
nd
standard
and the transfer certificate dated 4.7.2007 was enclosed.
The said application form had been signed by Joga Ram as
father of the accused Vijay Kumar on which the signature
of the headmaster along with the seal was also there. In
transfer certificate the date of birth of the accused was also
stated along with some other facts in order to assert that
Vijay Kumar was less than 18 years of age on the date of the
incident. But he had nowhere stated that he had another
son named Bhanwru who had died in 1995 and whose date
of birth was 12.12.1988. He attempted to establish that
the accused Vijay Kumar is the younger son of Joga Ram
and the elder son Bhanwru had died in the year 1995 and
10Page 11
it was he whose date of birth was 1988. He thus asserted
that Vijay Kumar in fact was born in the year 1990 and his
name was not Bhanwru but only Vijay Kumar. This part of
the story was set up by the father of the accused Joga
Ram at a later stage when the evidence was adduced.
10. The application filed on behalf of the accused
Vijay Kumar was contested by the complainant and both
the parties led evidence in support of their respective plea.
The specific case of the complainant was that Bhanwru Lal
and Vijay Kumar in fact are one and the same person and
Joga Ram has cooked up a story that he had another son
named Bhanwar Lal whose date of birth was 12.12.1988
and who later expired in 1995. The complainant stated
that as per the version of the father of the accused if the
deceased’s son Bhanwar Lal continued in the school up to
24.2.1996, the same was impossible as he is stated to have
expired in 1995 itself. According to the complainant Vijay
Kumar and Bhanwar Lal are the names of the same person
who committed the offence of rape in the year 2007 and
11Page 12
the defence taken by the accused was a concocted story
merely to take undue advantage of the Juvenile Justice Act.
11. After taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, the Sessions Court categorically
concluded that in this case no definite clear and conclusive
view is possible keeping in view the evidence which has
come on record with regard to the age of the accused and
both the views are clearly established and, therefore, the
view which is in favour of the accused is taken and the
accused is held to be a juvenile. The accused Vijay Kumar
was accordingly declared to be a juvenile and was directed
to be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial. This order
was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract
No.1) Jodhpur on 16.5.2009 in Sessions Case No.
151/2007.
12. The complainant-appellant thereafter assailed the
order of the Additional Sessions Judge holding the
respondent Vijay Kumar as a juvenile by filing a revision
12Page 13
petition before the High Court. The learned Judge hearing
the revision observed that a lot of contradictory evidence
with regard to the age and identity of Vijay Kumar @
Bhanwru has emerged and a lot of confusion has been
created with regard to the date of birth of accused Vijay
Kumar @ Bhanwroo. But the learned single Judge was
pleased to hold that the Additional Sessions Judge had
appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and he is
not found to have erred in declaring respondent No.2 Vijay
Kumar @ Bhanwru to be a juvenile offender. He has,
therefore, rightly been referred to the Juvenile Justice
Board for trial which warrants no interference. The learned
single Judge consequently dismissed the revision petition
against which the complainant filed this special leave
petition (Crl.) No. 2411/2011 which after grant of leave has
given rise to this appeal.
13. Assailing the orders of the courts below, learned
counsel for the appellant has essentially advanced twofold
submissions in course of the hearing. He had initially
13Page 14
submitted that Vijay Kumar alias Bhanwar Lal, son of Joga
Ram is the same person and Vijay Kumar is the changed
name of Bhanwar Lal whose correct date of birth is
12.12.1988 and not 30.6.1990 as stated by Joga Ram,
father of the accused. Hence, Vijay Kumar @ Bhanwar Lal
was not a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence.
14. In order to substantiate this plea, learned counsel
for the appellant submitted that in the application which
was moved by Joga Ram, father of the accused, before the
Additional Sessions Judge under Section 49 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, he has nowhere mentioned that he had two
sons named Vijay Kumar and Bhanwar Lal and that
Bhanwar Lal had died in 1995 whose date of birth was
12.12.1988 and his other son Vijay Kumar’s date of birth
was 30.6.1990. In fact, he himself had mentioned his son’s
name as Vijay Kumar @ Bhanwru at more than one place in
the application and later has planted a story that he had
two sonce viz., Bhanwar Lal and Vijay Kumar, and Bhanwar
14Page 15
Lal whose date of birth was 12.12.1988 had already died in
the year 1995.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant further
contended that the benefit of the principle of benevolent
legislation conferred on the Juvenile Justice Act, cannot be
applied in the present case as the courts below -specially
the court of fact which is the Additional Sessions Judge
(Fast Track No.1) Jodhpur did not record a categorical
finding with regard to the date of birth of the respondentaccused and the aforesaid principle can be applied only to a
case where the accused is clearly held to be a juvenile so as
to be sent for trial by the juvenile court or to claim any
other benefit by the alleged juvenile accused. Counsel for
the Appellant has relied upon the evidence of NAW-3
-Medical Jurist, who conducted ossification test of the
accused and opined before the court that the accused was
19 years of age and statement of NAW-1 Assistant Professor
in Radiology who opined before the court on 23.11.2007
15Page 16
that on the basis of the x-ray films, age of the accused is
above 18 years and below 20 years.
16. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent on
his part contended that medical opinion could be sought
only when matriculation or equivalent certificate or date of
birth certificate from the school was not available and since
in the present case the admission certificate of the accused
from the school record is available which states the date of
birth to be 30.6.1990, the school certificate ought to be
allowed to prevail upon the medical opinion.
17. We are unable to appreciate and accept the
aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the respondent
since the age of the accused could not be proved merely on
the basis of the school record as the courts below in spite of
its scrutiny could not record a finding of fact that the
accused, in fact, was a minor on the date of the incident.
Hence, in a situation when the school record itself is not
free from ambiguity and conclusively prove the minority of
16Page 17
the accused, medical opinion cannot be allowed to be
overlooked or treated to be of no consequence. In this
context the statement of NAW-3 Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat, the
medical jurist who conducted the ossification test of the
accused and opined before the court that the accused was
19 years of age is of significance since it specifically states
that the accused was not a juvenile on the date of
commission of the offence. The statement of NAW-1 Dr.
C.R. Agarwal, Asstt. Professor in Radiology also cannot be
overlooked since he opined that on the basis of x-ray
films, the age of the accused is above 18 years and below 20
years. Thus, in a circumstance where the trial court itself
could not arrive at a conclusive finding regarding the age of
the accused, the opinion of the medical experts based on xray and ossification test will have to be given precedence
over the shaky evidence based on school records and a plea
of circumstantial inference based on a story set up by the
father of the accused which prima facie is a cock and bull
story.
17Page 18
18. It is no doubt true that if there is a clear and
unambiguous case in favour of the juvenile accused that
he was a minor below the age of 18 years on the date of the
incident and the documentary evidence at least prima facie
proves the same, he would be entitled for this special
protection under the Juvenile Justice Act. But when an
accused commits a grave and heinous offence and thereafter
attempts to take statutory shelter under the guise of being
a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording as
to whether an accused is a juvenile or not cannot be
permitted as the courts are enjoined upon to perform
their duties with the object of protecting the confidence of
common man in the institution entrusted with the
administration of justice. Hence, while the courts must be
sensitive in dealing with the juvenile who is involved in
cases of serious nature like sexual molestation, rape, gang
rape, murder and host of other offences, the accused cannot
be allowed to abuse the statutory protection by attempting
to prove himself as a minor when the documentary evidence
to prove his minority gives rise to a reasonable doubt
18Page 19
about his assertion of minority. Under such circumstance,
the medical evidence based on scientific investigation will
have to be given due weight and precedence over the
evidence based on school administration records which give
rise to hypothesis and speculation about the age of the
accused. The matter however would stand on a different
footing if the academic certificates ad school records are
alleged to have been with held deliberately with ulterior
motive and authenticity of the medical evidence is under
challenge by the prosecution.
19. In the instant matter, the accused Vijay Kumar is
alleged to have committed a crime which repels against
moral conscience as he chose a girl of 13 and a half years
to satisfy his lust by hatching a plot with the assistance of
his accomplice Subhash who already stands convicted and
thereafter the accused has attempted to seek protection
under the plea that he committed such an act due to his
innocence without understanding its implication in which
his father Joga Ram is clearly assisting by attempting to
19Page 20
rope in a story that he was a minor on the date of the
incident which is not based on conclusive evidence worthy
of credence but is based on a confused story as also shaky
and fragile nature of evidence which hardly inspires
confidence. It is hard to ignore that when the Additional
Sessions Judge in spite of meticulous scrutiny of oral and
documentary evidence could not arrive at a conclusive
finding that he was clearly a juvenile below the age of 18
years on the date of incident, then by what logic and
reasoning he should get the benefit of the theory of
benevolent legislation on the foothold of Juvenile Justice Act
is difficult to comprehend as it clearly results in erroneous
application of this principle and thus we find sufficient
force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant
that the benefit of the principle of benevolent legislation can
be made applicable in favour of only those delinquents who
undoubtedly have been held to be a juvenile which leaves no
scope for speculation about the age of the alleged accused.
20Page 21
20. We therefore cannot overlook that the trial court
as well as the High Court while passing the impugned order
could not arrive at any finding at all as to whether the
accused was a major or minor on the date of the incident
and yet gave the benefit of the principle of benevolent
legislation to an accused whose plea of minority that he was
below the age of 18 years itself was in doubt. In such
situation, the scales of justice is required to be put on an
even keel by insisting for a reliable and cogent proof in
support of the plea of juvenility specially when the victim
was also a minor.
21. The benefit of the principle of benevolent
legislation attached to Juvenile Justice Act would thus
apply to only such cases wherein the accused is held to be a
juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence
regarding his minority as the benefit of the possibilities of
two views in regard to the age of the alleged accused who is
involved in grave and serious offence which he committed
and gave effect to it in a well planned manner reflecting his
21Page 22
maturity of mind rather than innocence indicating that his
plea of juvenility is more in the nature of a shield to dodege
or dupe the arms of law, cannot be allowed to come to his
rescue. Hence if the plea of juvenility or the fact that he
had not attained the age of discretion so as to understand
the consequence of his heinous act is not free from
ambiguity or doubt, the said plea cannot be allowed to be
raised merely on doubtful school admission record and in
the event it is doubtful, the medical evidence will have to be
given due weightage while determining the age of the
accused.
22. Adverting to the facts of this case we have noticed
that the trial court in spite of the evidence led on behalf of
the accused, was itself not satisfied that the accused was a
juvenile as none of the school records relied upon by the
respondent-accused could be held to be free from doubt so
as to form a logical and legal basis for the purpose of
deciding the correct date of birth of the accused indicating
that the accused was a minor/juvenile on the date of the
22Page 23
incident. This Court in several decisions including the case
of Ramdeo Chauhan @ Raj Nath vs. State of Assam,
reported in (2001) 5 SCC 714dealing with a similar
circumstance had observed which adds weight and strength
to what we have stated which is quoted herein as follows :-
“it is clear that the petitioner neither was a
child nor near about the age of being a child
within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act
or the Children Act. He is proved to be a major
at the time of the commission of the offence.
No doubt, much less a reasonable doubt is
created in the mind of the court, for the
accused entitling him to the benefit of a lesser
punishment, it is true that the accused tried to
create a smoke screen with respect to his age.
But such effort appear to have been made only
to hide his real age and not to create any doubt
in the mind of the court. The judicial system
cannot be allowed to be taken to ransom by
having resort to imaginative and concocted
grounds by taking advantage of loose
sentences appearing in the evidence of some of
the witnesses particularly at the stage of
special leave petition. The law insists on
finality of judgments and is more concerned
with the strengthening of the judicial system.
The courts are enjoined upon to perform their
duties with the object of strengthening the
confidence of the common man in the
institution entrusted with the administration of
justice. Any effort which weakens the system
and shakes the faith of the common man in the
23Page 24
justice dispensation system has to be
discouraged.”
The above noted observations no doubt were recorded by
the learned Judges of this Court while considering the
imposition of death sentence on the accused who claimed to
be a juvenile, nevertheless the views expressed therein
clearly lends weight for resolving an issue where the court
is not in a position to clearly draw an inference wherein an
attempt is made by the accused or his guardian claiming
benefit available to a juvenile which may be an effort to
extract sympathy and impress upon the Court for a lenient
treatment towards the so-called juvenile accused who, in
fact was a major on the date of incident.
23. However, we reiterate that we may not be
misunderstood so as to infer that even if an accused is
clearly below the age of 18 years on the date of commission
of offence, should not be granted protection or treatment
available to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act if a
dispute regarding his age had been raised but was finally
24Page 25
resolved on scrutiny of evidence. What is meant to be
emphasized is that where the courts cannot clearly infer in
spite of available evidence on record that the accused is a
juvenile or the said plea appear to have been raised merely
to create a mist or a smokescreen so as to hide his real age
in order to shield the accused on the plea of his minority,
the attempt cannot be allowed to succeed so as to subvert
or dupe the cause of justice. Drawing parallel between the
plea of minority and the plea of alibi, it may be worthwhile
to state that it is not uncommon to come across criminal
cases wherein an accused makes an effort to take shelter
under the plea of alibi which has to be raised at the first
instance but has to be subjected to strict proof of evidence
by the court trying the offence and cannot be allowed lightly
in spite of lack of evidence merely with the aid of salutary
principle that an innocent man may not have to suffer
injustice by recording an order of conviction in spite of his
plea of alibi. Similarly, if the conduct of an accused or the
method and manner of commission of the offence
indicates an evil and a well planned design of the accused
25Page 26
committing the offence which indicates more towards the
matured skill of an accused than that of an innocent child,
then in the absence of reliable documentary evidence in
support of the age of the accused, medical evidence
indicating that the accused was a major cannot be allowed
to be ignored taking shelter of the principle of benevolent
legislation like the Juvenile Justice Act, subverting the
course of justice as statutory protection of the Juvenile
Justice Act is meant for minors who are innocent law
breakers and not accused of matured mind who uses the
plea of minority as a ploy or shield to protect himself from
the sentence of the offence committed by him. The benefit
of benevolent legislation under the Juvenile Justice Act
obviously will offer protection to a genuine child
accused/juvenile who does not put the court into any
dilemma as to whether he is a juvenile or not by adducing
evidence in support of his plea of minority but in absence of
the same, reliance placed merely on shaky evidence like
the school admission register which is not proved or oral
evidence based on conjectures leading to further ambiguity,
26Page 27
cannot be relied upon in preference to the medical evidence
for assessing the age of the accused.
24. While considering the relevance and value of the
medical evidence, the doctor’s estimation of age although is
not a sturdy substance for proof as it is only an opinion,
such opinion based on scientific medical test like
ossification and radiological examination will have to be
treated as a strong evidence having corroborative value
while determining the age of the alleged juvenile accused. In
the case of Ramdeo Chauhan Vs. State of Assam (supra), the
learned judges have added an insight for determination of
this issue when it recorded as follows:-
“Of course the doctor’s estimate of age is not a
sturdy substitute for proof as it is only his
opinion. But such opinion of an expert cannot be
sidelined in the realm where the Court gropes in
the dark to find out what would possibly have
been the age of a citizen for the purpose of
affording him a constitutional protection. In the
absence of all other acceptable material, if such
opinion points to a reasonable possibility
regarding the range of his age, it has certainly to
be considered.”
27Page 28
The situation, however, would be different if the academic
records are alleged to have been with held deliberately to
hide the age of the alleged juvenile and the authenticity of
the medical evidence is under challenge at the instance of
the prosecution. In that event, whether the medical
evidence should be relied upon or not will obviously depend
on the value of the evidence led by the contesting parties.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis
based on the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case,
we are of the view that the Respondent No.2 Vijay Kumar
and his father have failed to prove that Respondent No.2
was a minor at the time of commission of offence and hence
could not have been granted the benefit of the Juvenile
Justice Act which undoubtedly is a benevolent legislation
but cannot be allowed to be availed of by an accused who
has taken the plea of juvenility merely as an effort to hide
his real age so as to create a doubt in the mind of the courts
below who thought it appropriate to grant him the benefit of
a juvenile merely by adopting the principle of benevolent
28Page 29
legislation but missing its vital implication that although
the Juvenile Justice Act by itself is a piece of benevolent
legislation, the protection under the same cannot be made
available to an accused who in fact is not a juvenile but
seeks shelter merely by using it as a protective umbrella
or statutory shield. We are under constraint to observe that
this will have to be discouraged if the evidence and other
materials on record fail to prove that the accused was a
juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. Juvenile
Justice Act which is certainly meant to treat a child accused
with care and sensitivity offering him a chance to reform
and settle into the mainstream of society, the same cannot
be allowed to be used as a ploy to dupe the course of justice
while conducting trial and treatment of heinous offences.
This would clearly be treated as an effort to weaken the
justice dispensation system and hence cannot be
encouraged.
26. We therefore deem it just and appropriate to set
aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court as
29Page 30
also the courts below and thus allow this appeal.
Consequently, the accused Vijay Kumar, S/o Joga Ram
shall be sent for trial before the court of competent
jurisdiction wherein the trial is pending and not to the
Juvenile Court as pleaded by him. We order accordingly.
…..……………………..J
(G.S. Singhvi)
…………………………J
(Gyan Sudha Misra)
New Delhi,
April 13, 2012
30
