# RAM NARAIN v. STATE OF U.P

- **Citation:** [2015] 9 S.C.R. 200
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-08-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7526 of 2015
- **Bench:** Pinaki Chandra Ghose, R. K. Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-narain-v-state-of-u-p-30661
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000: 57(a) -
Conviction of petitioner-applicant for
commission of offence uls. 302, !PC and imposition of life
0
imprisonment -
Subsequent application by him for
declaration of hisjuvenility on the date of incident- Juvenile
Justice Board on the basis of school transfer certificate
coming to conclusion that the applicant on the date of incident
was 15 years, 11 months only and declared him juvenile
E offender- Petitioner-applicant already served sentence for
more than 10 years and still in jail - Held: Applicant should
get the benefit under the Act since he was juvenile on the
date of commission of the offence - Penal Code, 1860 - s.
302
F
G
H
Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa 2015 (5) SCALE
634; Ajay Kumar v State of M.P (2010) 15 SCC 83;
Hakim v. State (2014) 13 SCC 427; Lakhan Lal v. State
of Bihar (2011) 2 sec 251 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
2015 (5) SCALE 634
relied on.
Para4
(2010) 15 sec 83
relied on.
Para4
(2014) 13 sec 427
relied on.
Para 4
(2011) 2 sec 251
relied on.
Para4
200
RAM NARAIN v. STATE OF U.P.
201

## Text

A
8
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 200
RAM NARAIN
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7526 of 2015)
IN
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1446 of2004
AUGUST 07, 2015
C
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000: 57(a) -
Conviction of petitioner-applicant for
commission of offence uls. 302, !PC and imposition of life
0
imprisonment -
Subsequent application by him for
declaration of hisjuvenility on the date of incident- Juvenile
Justice Board on the basis of school transfer certificate
coming to conclusion that the applicant on the date of incident
was 15 years, 11 months only and declared him juvenile
E offender- Petitioner-applicant already served sentence for
more than 10 years and still in jail - Held: Applicant should
get the benefit under the Act since he was juvenile on the
date of commission of the offence - Penal Code, 1860 - s.
302
F
G
H
Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa 2015 (5) SCALE
634; Ajay Kumar v State of M.P (2010) 15 SCC 83;
Hakim v. State (2014) 13 SCC 427; Lakhan Lal v. State
of Bihar (2011) 2 sec 251 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
2015 (5) SCALE 634
relied on.
Para4
(2010) 15 sec 83
relied on.
Para4
(2014) 13 sec 427
relied on.
Para 4
(2011) 2 sec 251
relied on.
Para4
200
RAM NARAIN v. STATE OF U.P.
201
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc.
A
Petition no. 7526 of 2015 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
1446 of2004
From the Judgment and Order dated 07 .11.2003 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.· B
2297of1978
Santosh Kumar Tripathi for the Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
c
1. This application has been filed to release the applicant
from the prison on the ground mentioned in the petition that
the petitioner-applicant has already served the sentence for D
more than 10 years and still is in jail. The petitioner-applicant
was sentenced for life imprisonment for commission of offence
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for
short). Subsequent thereto he filed an application for
declaration of his juvenility on the date of the incident, before E
the competent Court of jurisdiction, under the advice of his
counsel, being Application No.259 of 2013. The Juvenile
Justice Board vide its order dated 16.11.2013, a copy whereof
is also annexed hereto, arrived at the conclusion that the age
of the applicant on the date of the incident was 15 years 11
F
months 26 days only and thereby he was below 18 years at
the time of occurring of incident. Accordingly, by the said order
the Juvenile Justice Board declared him as a juvenile offender.
It further appears that before the Juvenile Justice Board the
applicant-petitioner produced a transfer certificate wherein his G
date of birth was recorded as December 25, 1960.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-applicant
submitted that in view of the aforesaid fact the petitionerapplicant should be given exemption under the provisions of H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015) 9 S.C.R.
A
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
He further drew our attention to the certificate issued by the
Senior Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Agra, certifying the
period he is in jail. The learned counsel appearing in this
matter further submitted that according to the prosecution the
B petitioner-applicant was charged under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 for committing the murder of one
Nathi Lal on 21st December, 1976 at about 6.30 P.M. by
causing him gunshot injury. The petitioner-applicant pleaded
juvenility before the Trial Court in his statement recorded under
C
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 28th
July, 1978, along with other grounds in his defence, but he could
not produce the transfer certificate during prosecution being
helpless and as a result whereof he had to suffer the sentence
0
under Section 302 IPC culminating to life imprisonment. The
special leave petition filed by the petitioner-applicant before
this Court was dismissed on 20.08.2004 and the review
petition was also dismissed by this Court by its order dated
13.10.2004,
E
3. In these circumstances, the petitioner-applicant had to
spend more than 10 years in prison without getting any remedy
under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000. We have heard the learned
F
counsel for the petitioner-applicant. We have also considered
the decisions cited by the learned counsel.
4. In the case of Upendra Pradhan v. State ofOrissa,
2015 (5) SCALE 634, wherein the appeal of the accused was
allowed granting him the benefit of the provisions of the
G Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000,
this Court observed:
"The learned counsel for the appellant raises the plea of
juvenility under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care
H
and Protection) Act, 2000. The plea can be raised before
RAM NARAIN v. STATE OF U.P.
any Court and at any point of time. We feel that the stand
taken by the counsel is correct and we will look into the
present lis keeping in mind the juvenility of the accused
appellant at the time of commission of the crime. As
stated earlier, the age of the accused appellant was less
than 18 years at the time of the incident. It has been
brought to our notice that the appellant has undergone
about 8 years in jail. The appellant falls within the definition
of "juvenile" under Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000. He can raise
the plea of juvenility at any time and before any court as
per the mandate of Section 7(a) and has rightly done so.
It has been proved before us, as per the procedure given
in the Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2007,
and the age of the accused appellant has been
determined following the correct procedure and there is
no doubt regarding it.
On the question of sentencing, we believe that the
accused appellant is to be released. In the present matter,
in addition to the fact that he was a juvenile at the time of
commission of offence, the accused appellant is entitled
to benefit of doubt. Therefore, the conviction order
passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law.
Assuming without conceding, that even if the conviction
is upheld, Upendra Pradhan has undergone almost 8
years of sentence, which is more than the maximum
period of three years prescribed under Section 15 of the
Juvenile Justice Act of2000. Thus, giving him the benefit
under the Act, we strike down the decision of the High
Court. This Court has time and again held in a plethora
of judgments on the benefit of the Act of 2000 and on the
question of sentencing."
203
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
We have also noticed that in Ajay Kumarv State of M.P.,
H
(2010) 15 SCC 83, this Court observed as follows:
204
A
B
c
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 9 S.C.R.
"In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the maximum
period for which a juvenile could be kept in a special
home is for three years. In the instant case, we are
informed that the appellant who is proved to be a juv~nile
has undergone detention for a period of about
approximately 14 years. In that view of the matter,
since the appellant herein was a minor on the date
of commission of the offence and has already
undergone more than the maximum period of
detention as provided for under section 15 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, by following the provisions of
Rule 98 of Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 read with
Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, we allow the
appeal with a direction that the appellant be released
forthwith."
(Emphasis Supplied)
The same view was followed in Hakim v. State, (2014)
13 SCC 427, and Lakhan Lal v. State of Bihar, (2011) 2
E sec 251.
5. Hence, we think that the petitioner-applicant should get
the benefit under the said Act since he was a juvenile on the
date of commission of the offence. In view of the above, this
F appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order
passed by the Trial Court as also the High Court are set aside.
The petitioner-applicant is directed to be released forthwith.
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.
G