Dismissed

Ram Sewak Dangi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Oct 2022W.P.(Cr.)/7/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to conduct an age enquiry under the Juvenile Justice Act. The court held that while claimants must show prima facie material for juvenility, granting the direction is not an unfettered right after final disposal of appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach appropriate forum to work out remedy.

Ram Sewak Dangi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Writ Jurisdiction)

¶2

W.P (Cr.) (DB) No. 07 of 2021

¶3

Ram Sewak Dangi, s/o late Bulak Mahto, r/o village-Pathalgada, PO & PSItkhori, District-Chatra ...… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent

¶6

---------------

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rohan Kashyap, AC to GA-II

---------------

O R D E R

20^th October 2022

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

¶13

This matter has been assigned to DB-III by an order dated 26^th August 2021 passed on administrative side by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand.

¶14

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition (criminal) for a direction under section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short, Juvenile Justice Act) to the Juvenile Justice Court for conducting an enquiry as to determination of his age as on 18^th August 1988.

¶15

Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Abdul Razzaq v. State of Uttar Pradesh” (2015) 15 SCC 637 to lay support to the writ petition that even after dismissal of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 152 of 1996 (R), the petitioner can seek a direction to the Juvenile Justice Court for ascertaining his age.

¶16

The petitioner was an accused in Itkhori PS Case No.68 of 1988 which was registered on 18^th August 1988. In Sessions Trial No.121 of 1989, the petitioner along with four others were put on trial and they have been convicted and sentenced to RI for life under section 304-B/34 of the Indian

¶17

2 W.P(Cr.)(DB) No. 07 of 2021

¶18

Penal Code – no sentence was awarded for the offence under section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

Criminal Appeal (DB) No.152 of 1996 (R) was preferred by Ram Sewak Dangi, Ram Bilas Dangi and Munia Devi which has been decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by judgment dated 2^nd July 2018. In that proceeding, criminal appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and Ram Bilas Dangi and Munia Devi were acquitted. Against the order passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 152 of 1996 (R), the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9567 of 2018 which has been dismissed vide order dated 19^th November 2018 in the following terms:

¶20

“Heard.

¶21

We do not find any good ground warranting interference with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

¶23

Prima facie, a writ petition seeking a direction for conducting an enquiry as envisaged under section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be entertained after dismissal of the Criminal Appeal and the Special Leave Petition filed by the accused. In our opinion, now an application under section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act can be filed either in the Hon'ble Supreme Court or in the subject jurisdictional Court in the High Court.

¶24

In support of the present writ petition, the petitioner has produced a photocopy of the Matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board dated 24^th August 1988. Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid Matriculation certificate the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 25^th January 1972 and on that basis the petitioner has raised a plea that he was a juvenile as on 18^th August 1988.

¶25

Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act provides the procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court.

¶26

Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act reads as under:

¶27

“ 7-A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court. —(1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an enquiry, take such evidence as may be

¶28

3 W.P(Cr.)(DB) No. 07 of 2021

¶29

necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be :

¶30

Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act.

¶31

(2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sentence if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect.”

¶32

In a long line of judgments, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act is mandatory. The various provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act have been interpreted to hold that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar” (2000) 6 SCC 89 a plea raising a claim for juvenility can be raised for the first time even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In “Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan” (2009) 13 SCC 211 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a claim of juvenility can be raised before any Court at any stage and even after final disposal of the case. It has further been held that the effect of the proviso to section 7-A is that such claim should be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the Juvenile Justice Act and the rules made thereunder.

¶33

In “Hari Ram” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

¶34

“49. The effect of the proviso to Section 7-A introduced by the amending Act makes it clear that the claim of juvenility may be raised before any court which shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules made thereunder which includes the definition of “juvenile” in Sections 2(k) and 2(l) of the Act even if the juvenile had ceased to be soon or before the date of commencement of the Act.”

¶35

From the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we gather that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act have been interpreted liberally to extend the benefit upon a juvenile. In “Abdul Razzaq” , section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act has been interpreted to hold that a plea of juvenility can be raised and examined even after the judgment of conviction has attained finality – that is, even after the Special Leave Petition filed by the convict

¶36

4 W.P(Cr.)(DB) No. 07 of 2021

¶37

was dismissed. Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied on the judgment in “Abdul Razzaq” to submit that whenever a plea of juvenility is raised the same must be guided by the objectives of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Court should not take any hyper-technical approach in examining a claim for juvenility.

¶38

We accept the aforesaid legal position but would indicate that it is not an unfettered right in an accused and, that too, after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by him, that a direction must necessarily be issued to the trial Court for conducting an enquiry in the matter.

¶39

In “Abuzar Hossain v. State of W.B.” (2012) 10 SCC 489 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that after conviction, the claimant must produce some material with respect to juvenility which may prima facie satisfy the Court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is

¶40

necessary.

¶41

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

¶42

“39.2. For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility.”

¶43

In support of the present writ petition the petitioner has produced a photocopy of the Matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, the genuineness of which cannot be examined in the present proceeding.

¶44

For the aforesaid reasons, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we decline to entertain the present writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy and approach the appropriate forum as available to him in law.

¶45

W.P (Cr.) (DB) No. 07 of 2021 is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶46

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶47

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶48

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 20^th October 2022 sudhir/N.A.F.R.

Ram Sewak Dangi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sewak Dangi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Jharkhand Vs Kusumlata Devi

The State of Jharkhand Vs Champa Devi

Jaya Kumari Singh Vs Shrey Kumar Alias Shrya Kumar

Smita Gupta Vs Dheeraj Kumar Lal

Anna Kujur Vs Ashim Kumar Singh

Sangeeta Kujur Vs Vijay Kujur