Sentence Is Set Aside As Accused Is Held Juvenile; Matter Referred To Juvenile Board

A bench of Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard an appeal against conviction and sentence imposed for offences under Sections 342 and 376 IPC, and a belated plea that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offence which was urged for the first time before this Court.

The Court upheld the factual findings of guilt recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court but held that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the offence and therefore entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Court noted established principles that “a conviction can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found to be credible and trustworthy,” while simultaneously directing that the sentence could not stand once juvenility was proved. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "As regards the opposition by the State with regard to the plea having been taken for the first time before this Court that the Appellant being a juvenile being not permissible, the same needs to be merely mentioned to be rejected in light of the authoritative judgments passed by this Court starting from Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Another followed by Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (Supra), where it has been categorically held that the plea of juvenility can be raised before any court and has to be recognized at any stage, even after disposal of the case. It has further been held that such a claim is required to be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the 2000 Act and the Rules framed thereunder, i.e., the 2007 Rules, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of the 2000 Act, as in the present case. The relevant factor, therefore, is that the accused, to be a juvenile, should have not completed 18 years of age on the date of commission of the offense, which entitles him to the benefit of the 2000 Act." Consequently, the Court set aside the sentence and referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders under Sections 15 and 16 of the 2000 Act, directing the appellant to appear before the Board on 15 September 2025.

Background The prosecution case arose from an incident dated 17 November 1988 when an 11‑year‑old girl alleged that the appellant raped her in a village "Bada" at about 2:00 PM. The FIR was lodged the next morning; the prosecution explained the delay by reference to distance to the police station and the victim first narrating the incident to her mother in the evening. The trial court convicted the appellant for wrongful confinement (Section 342) and rape (Section 376) and sentenced him; the High Court confirmed conviction and sentence by its judgment dated 12 July 2024.

The defence raised discrepancies in witness statements, pointed to the delay in registration of the FIR, reliance on a hostile elder brother of the victim, and medical evidence noting “no injuries on the external parts of the body” though the hymen was observed to be torn horizontally with no fresh bleeding. The prosecution relied on the prosecutrix’s testimony, corroborative medical evidence (including a potency test of the accused) and other material such as the victim’s clothing.

The plea that the appellant was a juvenile (born 14 September 1972, which would make him 16 years, 2 months and 3 days on 17 November 1988) was pressed before this Court for the first time. This Court ordered an inquiry under the guidelines in Abuzar Hossain and, on receipt of the Inquiry Report, accepted school records and other documents showing the date of birth as 14.09.1972. The inquiry concluded that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offence. Applying settled precedent that a claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage and must be determined in accordance with the 2000 Act and the 2007 Rules, the Court held the provisions of the 2000 Act applicable, set aside the sentence, referred the case to the Board for orders under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, and disposed of the appeal. The appellant was directed to appear before the Board on 15 September 2025.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.2695 of 2025 (2025 INSC 887) Case Title: SUA v. The State of Rajasthan Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Counsel not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Counsel not indicated in judgment]