Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Juvenile Justice Act, 1986

31 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SUDESH KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2008 INSC 11329 January 2008Dismissed

Sudesh Kumar was convicted under IPC s.392 r/w s.34 and the Arms Act for a robbery committed on 7 March 1981 and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed, claiming benefit under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, asserting that he was under 21 years of age at the time of the offence b

BIJENDER SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 16028 March 2005Disposed off

An FIR was lodged for murder and related offences committed on 17‑11‑1999. The accused, aged 17 years and 8 months at the time, applied to be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The 1986 Juvenile Justice Act, then in force, defined a male juvenile as under 16, s

JITENDRA RAM @JITUversusSTTE OF JHARKHAND

2006 INSC 24925 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Jitendra Ram (Jitu) was convicted of murder and abetment of suicide under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. He contended before the Supreme Court that he was a minor at the time of the offence (18‑11‑1985) and therefore entitled to the protection of the Bihar Children Act

DEVILAL AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2021 INSC 11825 February 2021Disposed off

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

DHARAMBIRversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

2010 INSC 23823 April 2010Case Partly allowed

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

EERATI LAXMANversusSTATE OF A.P.

2009 INSC 6123 January 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Eerati Laxman was convicted of murder under s.302 IPC for killing Pittala Chandrakala on 9 May 1994 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He contended that he was a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, claiming his birth date was 10 May 1978, and thus had not attained the age of 16 at the time of the offence. T

PAWAN KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2023 INSC 101221 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

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

REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHANversusBANI KANT DAS AND ORS.

2010 INSC 79619 November 2010Case Allowed

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

KETANKUMAR GOPALBHAI TANDELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2013 INSC 48418 July 2013Case Partly allowed

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

SATISH @ DHANNAversusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.

2009 INSC 54917 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Satish @ Dhanna, born on 12‑11‑1980, was convicted under IPC sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 for offences committed when he was under 18 years of age. The appeal questioned whether, after the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force, he could be treated as a juvenile and enjoy its pro

SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEEversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1989 INSC 9517 March 1989Directions issued

The Supreme Court entertained a writ petition under Article 32 seeking relief for delinquent children detained in regular jails, in light of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The Court noted that earlier reports from District Judges showed significant numbers of juveniles in regular jails across several states and that t

JAMEELversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2007 INSC 4316 January 2007Dismissed

The appellant, a mechanic, lured a five‑year‑old girl, took her away and allegedly committed sexual assault, including intercourse through the rectum. The girl identified the accused the next day and a medical report corroborated the assault. The trial court convicted him under IPC sections 363, 376, 511 and 377, and t

SATBIR SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2005 INSC 41714 September 2005Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the appeal of Satbir Singh and others, who were convicted for the dowry death of Shanti Singh under IPC Sections 304‑B, 498‑A and 201. The prosecution proved that Shanti was harassed for additional dowry (Rs 7,000) shortly before her death, that she died within seven years of marriage under s

LAKHAN LALversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2011 INSC 5014 January 2011Case Partly allowed

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

BHIM @ UTTAM GHOSHversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010 INSC 77412 November 2010Case Partly allowed

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

BALU @ BAKTHVATCHALUversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2008 INSC 17712 February 2008Case Allowed

The appellant, Balu (Bakthavatchalu), was convicted of murder under IPC 302 for an incident that occurred on 20 April 1998. The trial court recorded his age as 18 and rejected his application to be sent to a Borstal School. On appeal, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether he was a juvenile at the time of the

RANJIT SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2008 INSC 103011 September 2008Dismissed

In 1993 Ranjit Singh, then about 17 years old, was convicted of murder and related offences under the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed, contending that he was a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and that Section 20 of that Act should apply to his pending

ABUZAR HOSSAIN @ GULAM HOSSAINversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

2012 INSC 46110 October 2012Reference answered

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

JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2013 INSC 45810 July 2013Case Partly allowed

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

RAMDEO CHAUHAN@ RAJ NATHversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2001 INSC 27210 May 2001Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered a review petition filed by R.D. Chauhan, who claimed he was a juvenile at the time of committing murder under Section 302 IPC and therefore could not be sentenced to death. The petition argued that the trial and appellate courts failed to apply the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and that the c

GURPREET SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2005 INSC 5579 November 2005

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Kuljit Singh, where the accused Gurpreet Singh and Mohinder Pal Singh, along with others, were convicted under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused shared a common intention to kill, supported by eyewitness testimony and medical eviden

GAURAV JAINversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 5479 July 1997Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ under Article 32 on behalf of Gaurav Jain, seeking rescue, rehabilitation and education for children of prostitutes and an overall scheme to eradicate prostitution. The Court examined the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, 21, 23, 24, 38, 39, 46 and int

ARNIT DASversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2000 INSC 3119 May 2000Dismissed

Arnit Das was arrested for a murder under IPC 302 and claimed to be a juvenile, asserting a birth date of 18‑09‑1982. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered an enquiry under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and, after a medical board report, concluded that Das was above 16 years of age on the dat

OM PRAKASH @ ISRAEL @ RAJU @ RAJU DASversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 437 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

DAYA NANDversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2011 INSC 207 January 2011Disposed off

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

SURINDER SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

2003 INSC 4555 September 2003Dismissed

The appellants were convicted of murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34 for the killing of Hamam Singh. The trial court had acquitted them, relying on the alleged unreliability of witnesses who were relatives of the deceased, the absence of independent shop‑keeper witnesses, a site‑plan omission, and a perceived conflic

BABLA @ DINESHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012 INSC 3734 September 2012Case Partly allowed

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

JYOTI PRAKASH RAI @ JYOTI PRAKASHversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2008 INSC 2944 March 2008Dismissed

The appellant Jyoti Prakash Rai was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for killing a schoolmate on 12 May 2000. At the time of the offence the trial magistrate estimated his age to be about 17 years, but the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force on 1 April 2001, raising the

VISHAL JEETversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1990 INSC 1712 May 1990Disposed off

Vishal Jeet filed a public‑interest writ petition under Article 32 seeking a CBI inquiry into police negligence, the forced prostitution, Devadasi and Jogini systems, and rehabilitation of victims. The Court observed that prostitution is a socio‑economic problem requiring preventive, not merely punitive, measures and t

PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

2005 INSC 582 February 2005Disposed off

The appellant Pratap Singh was charged with offences allegedly committed on 31‑12‑1998 and was produced before the Juvenile Court in 2000. The key issues were whether the age of a juvenile offender should be reckoned as of the date of the offence or the date of production before the court, and whether the Juvenile Just

VIKRAM SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2009 INSC 6601 May 2009Case Partly allowed

Vikram Singh was convicted in 1998 for a crime committed on 20‑02‑1996 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence, being born on 04‑05‑1980, and therefore entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as amended in 20

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search