Juvenile Justice Act, 1986

The case concerned the murder of Ganeshram in July 1998, for which Devilal, his son Gokul and Amrat Ram (AR) were charged under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and the SC/ST Act. The trial court relied on the FIR as a dying declaration and on eyewitness testimony of the victim's wife (PW1) and sister‑in‑law (PW2), corroborated by r…

The appellant, Dharmabir, was convicted of murder and attempted murder committed in August 1991 when he was 16 years, 9 months old. At the time of the offences the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 did not deem him a juvenile, but the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which defines a juvenile as a …

Pawan Kumar was convicted of murder and attempt to murder (IPC ss.302, 307 read with s.34) and sentenced to life imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment. He contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence (01‑12‑1995) and sought the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act. The trial court and High Co…

The petitioner, Remdeo Chauhan, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, which was later commuted to life imprisonment by the Governor of Assam after a recommendation from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Relatives of the victims challenged the commutation, arguing that the NHRC lacked jurisdiction a…

The appellant was convicted of murder and assault in 1995 and sentenced to life imprisonment and fines. At the time of the offence he was 17 years, 11 months and 5 days old, i.e., below 18 years. The issue was whether he should be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2…

Lakhan Lal and Pappu Lal were convicted of murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34 and sentenced to life imprisonment. At the time of the offence (9 May 1985) they were about 16 years old, i.e., minors under the age of 18. The Supreme Court examined whether they could be treated as juveniles under the Juvenile Justice (C…

The appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the IPC for an offence committed on 6 March 1983, when he was about 15 years old. After serving part of his sentence, he challenged the conviction on the ground that he should be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000…

The appellant, Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain, claimed that he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence and therefore could not be tried in a regular criminal court. The claim was not raised in the trial or earlier appeals, and the question before the Supreme Court was whether a claim of juvenility under s.7A …

The appellant was convicted under IPC sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty) and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. He later claimed to have been a juvenile at the time of the offence, asserting an age of 13 years 8 months, but documentary and medical evidence established his age as about 17 years, making hi…

The appellant, convicted of culpable homicide amounting to murder for a 1994 incident, claimed he was a minor at the time of the offence, asserting a plea of juvenility under s.9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Despite earlier courts treating him as an adult based on a bank‑accou…

The appellant Daya Nano was convicted under Sections 376 r.w. and 511 of the IPC for rape and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. He was 16 years, 5 months and 19 days old at the time of the offence, but the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force after the incident. The…

The appellant, Babla @ Dinesh, was convicted by a trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 149 of the IPC for a murder committed on 1‑12‑1991. He contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence, but the High Court rejected the plea on the ground that it was not raised before the…