Supreme Court of India
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramji Lal Sharma on 23 September, 2024
Author: B.V. Nagarathna
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna
2024 INSC 747 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.261 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.293 OF 2022
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
RAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAGARATHNA, J.
The Applicant/Respondent No. 2 herein, i.e., Brijnandan @
Brajesh Sharma has filed the present Miscellaneous Application
in the disposed of Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2002. seeking his
release from further jail sentence, on the ground of his juvenility
on the date of the offence, i.e., on 17.01.2002.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
Respondents in Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2022 were two of the
four accused in the crime registered pursuant to FIR No.8/2002
dated 17.01.2002 at Police Station AJK Bhind, District Bhinda,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nisha Khulbey
Date: 2024.10.01
17:08:20 IST
Madhya Pradesh, for the offences committed under Sections
Reason:
Page 1 of 9
302, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”),
read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short
“SC/ST Act”). Pursuant to the trial in Special Case No. 74 of
2002 before the Ld. Special Judge, Bhind, the Respondents were
convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the IPC and were awarded life imprisonment
and fine of Rs. 5000/- vide judgment dated 24.02.2006.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the
Respondents filed Criminal Appeal No.339 of 2006 before the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench. The High Court
allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondents vide judgment
dated 13.12.2018 and thereby set aside the conviction of the
Respondents.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the
High Court, the State preferred this Criminal Appeal No.293 of
2022 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.1926 of 2022 before this
Court. This Court, vide judgment dated 09.03.2022, allowed the
appeal filed by the State and, resultantly, the Respondents were
convicted and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was
restored. Hence, the Respondents were directed to undergo the
Page 2 of 9
remaining sentence as per the judgment and order of conviction
passed by the Trial Court.
It is in these circumstances that the applicant/respondent
No.2 has preferred the instant application seeking his release
from further jail sentence on the ground that he was a minor on
the date of commission of the offence i.e. 17.01.2002 and has
already undergone a sentence of more than four years.
5. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the
applicant Brijnandan alias Brajesh Sharma submitted that
although by the judgment of this Court the applicant herein was
convicted and serving his sentence; thereafter, on becoming
aware of the law the applicant has filed this application claiming
juvenility as on the date of the incident, i.e. 17.01.2002.
6. During the course of submissions, it was borne out that
while the date of birth of the applicant as per the school record
is 04.10.1984, it is 10.03.1984 as per the Aadhaar Card. We
note that the date of the commission of offence was on
17.01.2002. It was therefore submitted at the Bar that the
applicant’s plea of juvenility be accepted as Applicant was a
juvenile aged about 17 years and 3 months on the date of the
commission of offence.
Page 3 of 9
7. Considering the aforesaid inconsistency, this Court, vide
order dated 16.05.2024, had directed the Sessions Court,
District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh to conduct an enquiry with
regard to the claim of juvenility made by the applicant herein
and to submit a report to this Court in accordance with law. The
said enquiry has been conducted and by report dated
16.07.2024, the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Bhind, M.P.
has held that the applicant’s date of birth is 04.10.1984 and
consequently on the date of the incident, i.e. on 17.01.2002, he
was 17 years 3 months and 13 days old (though wrongly typed
as 17.03.2002 and 17 years 5 months and 13 days in the order
dated 16.07.2024). Therefore, the applicant being a juvenile on
the date of the commission of the offence is entitled to the
benefit of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protocol of
Children) Act, 2015 is the submission. Learned counsel for the
applicant contended that having regard to the fact that the
learned Sessions Judge has conducted a detailed enquiry by
examining not only the applicant but also his mother and in-
charge Head Teacher Government Primary School, Deori, Police
Station Mehgaon, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. Finally, it
was contended that the said report, which is in favour of the
Page 4 of 9
applicant herein, may be considered and the benefit of juvenility
be granted to the applicant herein. Consequently, the conviction
as against the applicant herein may be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State at the
outset submitted that the plea of juvenility is highly belated
inasmuch as the incident took place on 17.01.2002 but the
applicant after being convicted by this Court has subsequently
filed the application. The long delay in making the claim of
juvenility must be accounted for at the first instance before
considering other pleas made by the applicant. He also
submitted that there is discrepancy in the name of the applicant
in the special leave petition. The petition notes the applicant’s
name as Brijnandan alias Brajesh Sharma son of Ramji Lal
Sharma, whereas in the school documents it is noted as Brijesh
Kumar and in the Aadhaar Card it is just Brijesh. Therefore, the
miscellaneous application may be dismissed.
9. By way of reply, learned counsel for the applicant placed
reliance on a judgment of this Court in Abuzar Hossain vs.
State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489 to contend that the
claim for juvenility may be made at any stage of the criminal
proceedings and even after final conviction and sentence being
Page 5 of 9
imposed. Therefore, the said argument of the learned counsel for
the respondent-State is without any substance. He further
submitted that although the name of the applicant as stated by
the informant and the prosecution may be slightly at variance
with the name of the applicant in the school records as well as in
the enquiry that has been conducted on the basis of the
documents but the fact remains that the applicant is the son of
Ramji Lal and there being no dispute about the same, a slight
discrepency in the name would not negate his claim for
juvenility.
He further submitted that pursuant to the order of this
Court a comprehensive enquiry has been conducted. The
applicant, his mother and the head master of the school where
the applicant was studying have all been examined. There has
been no cross examination of the said witnesses in the enquiry
by the respondent-State. Therefore, there can now be no
objection raised by the State to the said report submitted by the
learned Sessions Judge. In the circumstances, he contended
that the report may be taken into consideration and relief may
be granted to the applicant herein.
Page 6 of 9
10. We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar.
11. It is noted that in respect of the incident dated 17.01.2002,
the applicant was convicted on 24.02.2006 by the Special
Sessions Judge, Bhind. Thereafter, he was acquitted by the High
Court vide judgment dated 13.12.2018. Subsequently, in the
appeal filed by the respondent-State, this Court by judgment
dated 09.03.2022, convicted the applicant. It is thereafter that
the applicant has undergone sentence of four years and three
months in all. Subsequently, this miscellaneous application was
filed and this Court vide order dated 16.05.2024 directed that
the enquiry be conducted. Subsequently, the learned Sessions
Judge has passed his order on 16.07.2024 and has submitted
his report to this Court. Pursuant to the order of this Court on
16.05.2024, the applicant has been released on interim bail.
Therefore, on perusal of this report, we note that not only the
applicant herein, but the mother as well as the Head Master of
school have been examined as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
respectively and as many as five documents were also
considered by the learned Sessions Judge. It is on consideration
of the same and having regard to Section 94 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 that the
Page 7 of 9
learned Sessions Judge found that the applicant was below
eighteen years of age as on the date of the incident. Although the
application has been filed subsequent to the conviction ordered
by this Court, we have regard to the judgment of this Court as
noted above and in judgment dated 17.01.2004 in Criminal
Appeal No.64/2012, titled as Pramila vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, that an application for claiming juvenility may be
made even after the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence has been granted against a person which has attained
finality.
Bearing in mind the aforesaid judgments and the report
submitted by the learned Sessions Judge, pursuant to the
directions of this Court, we find that the date of birth of the
applicant has been proved to be 04.10.1984. Consequently, the
claim of juvenility made by the applicant, who was arrayed as
accused no.3 is upheld and the conviction as recorded against
him by this Court is set-aside and he stands acquitted. As he is
on interim bail, his bail-bonds stand cancelled.
Page 8 of 9
Consequently, the miscellaneous application is allowed in
the aforesaid terms.
..…………………………………..……………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
….………………………………………………J.
[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 23, 2024.
Page 9 of 9