Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
103 judgments · newest first · showing 1–103
The applicant filed a complaint alleging that a juvenile damaged his cotton crop and erected illegal huts, leading to charges under IPC sections 447, 427 and 34. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in Parbhani, after repeated failure to secure the juvenile's appearance, invoked Section 14(2) and 14(4) …
Juvenile X, aged 17 at the time of the alleged offence, was detained since March 2021 and denied bail by a Special Judge under the POCSO Act. The appellant appealed under Section 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, contending that none of the grounds for bail …
The appellants – three brothers – were convicted in 2010 for kidnapping, criminal conspiracy and tampering with evidence under IPC sections 363A, 120B and 201, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. They contended that they were juveniles at the time of the alleged offence (October‑December 2000) …
The High Court considered a criminal revision filed by Juvenile "A" seeking to quash the Special Judge's order denying bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The revisionist argued that he is a juvenile entitled to bail unless reasonable grounds under Section 12 …
The High Court of Allahabad entertained a criminal revision filed by a minor seeking to quash the Juvenile Justice Board and Special Judge's orders that denied bail. The revisionist argued that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 there were no …
The High Court of Allahabad entertained a criminal revision filed by a juvenile (X) seeking to quash the denial of bail by the Children Court/Special Judge under the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Board. The revisionist argued that the juvenile, who was in custody since June 2025, had no …
The High Court considered a criminal revision filed by a 17‑year‑old juvenile seeking bail after orders of the Juvenile Court and Juvenile Justice Board denied it. The applicant argued that he had no criminal history, the DPO report raised no specific objections, and he had been confined for an …
The High Court considered a criminal revision filed by Juvenile S, a 16‑year‑old accused under the POCSO Act, seeking to quash the bail denial order of the Special Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board. The revisionist argued that the juvenile was falsely implicated, had no criminal history, the …
The revision petition was filed by a 17‑year‑old juvenile who had been in a child observation home since November 2025, seeking to quash the denial of bail by the Special Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner alleged false implication, lack of incriminating evidence, and that the bail …
The High Court considered a criminal revision filed by a juvenile (aged 15 years, 10 months) seeking to quash the denial of bail by the Children's Court and Juvenile Justice Board. The revisionist argued that the juvenile was falsely implicated, had no criminal history, the FIR was lodged after an …
The High Court considered a criminal revision filed by X, a minor aged 14 years, seeking to quash the bail denial order of the Special Additional Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, had no criminal history, and that no grounds under …
The revision petition was filed by Juvenile X, a 16‑year‑old who had been in custody since May 2025, seeking to quash the bail denial order of the Additional Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner alleged false implication, lack of criminal history, and an unduly long …
The applicants, Preeti Soni and another, sought quashing of a charge‑sheet dated 2‑April‑2025 and related proceedings under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S. and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, alleging that the dispute had been settled by compromise on 7‑Oct‑2025. The …
The appellant Suresh alleged that his paternal uncle and the uncle's son, Respondent No.2, forcibly entered his house and the son shot his brother Rajesh, resulting in death. Respondent No.2 claimed juvenility, asserting he was 16 years old at the time, based on a school transfer certificate from …
The appellants, Ramji Prasad Jaiswal, Ashok Kumar Jaiswal and Bal Mukund Jaiswal, were convicted for a 1982 fraud against the State Bank of India under IPC sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the trial, their statements under Section 313 of the CrPC were …
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 …
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 …
Makkella Nagaiah was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for a murder committed on 21‑12‑2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He later filed a writ petition under Article 32 claiming that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence, asserting a date of birth of …
The appellant Indrajit Das was convicted for murder under Sections 302, 34 and 201 of the IPC based largely on circumstantial evidence and extra‑judicial confessions. The prosecution alleged that the victim Kaushik Sarkar went missing after riding with the appellant and a juvenile, and that the …
The appeal arose from the Kathua gang‑rape case where the accused Shubam Sangra claimed to be a juvenile. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, relying on municipal and parental testimony, held him a minor, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The State appealed, arguing that contradictory documentary …
Vinod Katara, convicted to life imprisonment for murder in 1982, later claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence based on a medical board report and a Family Register showing a birth year of 1968. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking relief under Section 7A of the Juvenile …
The appellant XYZ, a minor, alleged that she was gang‑raped by the first respondent ABHISHEIK and others. The FIR was lodged on 24 July 2015. The accused claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence and produced a matriculation certificate, a school birth register entry and a municipal birth …
The appellant alleged that respondent No.2, Nishant Solanki, who was charged with serious offences including murder, was not a juvenile and challenged the Juvenile Justice Board's (JJ Board) declaration that he was a juvenile delinquent based on his matriculation certificate. The appellant argued …
The State of Bihar prosecuted Surajdeo Mahto (Appellant No.1) and Prakash Mahto (Appellant No.2) for the murder of Arun under sections 302 r/w 34 and 120B IPC, with Appellant No.1 also charged under section 364 IPC. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, chiefly the "last seen" theory, …
The appellant, Ram Vijay Singh, was convicted under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 for murder and claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the 20 July 1982 incident. He relied on a 1982 High Court bail order based on a radiologist’s report, an alleged age of 15½‑17½ years, and an arms‑licence application …
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 …
The appellant Satya Deo was convicted of murder under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence (aged 16 years 7 months) and sought relief under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Supreme Court …
Pawan Kumar Gupta, an accused in the Nirbhaya case, claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence on the basis of a school leaving certificate showing a birth date of 08‑10‑1996. He sought an enquiry under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, but the …
Ramesh Bishnoi was selected for the post of Sub‑Inspector in the CISF and disclosed an FIR from 2009 alleging offences under IPC sections 354, 447 and 509 that were committed when he was a minor. He was acquitted in 2011 due to lack of evidence, but the screening committee cancelled his appointment …
The Supreme Court examined whether the continuous humiliation and taunting of an 18‑year‑old girl by her relatives amounted to abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court held that the accused’s repeated insults, aimed at destroying the victim’s self‑esteem, …
The appellant, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, alleged that his son was murdered and that the accused, the second respondent, was a juvenile at the time of the offence. The accused claimed juvenility based on a CBSE matriculation certificate showing a birth date of 17‑12‑1998, while school records, a transfer …
The father (Ashok Kumar Mehra) and son (Kushwant Kumar Mehra) were convicted of murder under IPC s.302/34 by the High Court, overturning an earlier acquittal. The son was 17 years and 5 months old at the time of the offence (born 14‑06‑1980, offence on 04‑01‑1998) and raised a plea of juvenility for …
The appellant Raju was convicted along with two others for gang-rape under IPC s.376(2)(g) and appealed, claiming he was a juvenile at the time of the offence. The High Court rejected his claim, finding insufficient evidence, and upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court directed its Registrar …
Gaurav Kumar (Monu) was convicted for murder under IPC 302 for an incident that occurred on 23-24 May 2000. He claimed he was a juvenile at the time, relying on a school certificate showing a date of birth of 17 August 1982, while the municipal birth certificate recorded 17 August 1981. The Sessions …
Sampurna Behura filed a public‑interest writ petition under Article 32 seeking the implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Acts of 2000 and 2015, alleging that many states had failed to establish or properly staff Child Welfare Committees, Juvenile Justice Boards, …
The appellant was accused of having sexual intercourse with the complainant on five to six occasions, allegedly on a false promise of marriage, the last of which occurred in August 2009. The trial court, relying on documentary evidence, held that the appellant was born on 19 October 1991 and was …
The case concerned the murder of Badan Pal, a student, at a tube‑well shed where the deceased was shot. The prosecution proved that four accused, including Mahendra Singh and Vijendra Singh, were present in the shed; two were armed with pistols while Mahendra carried a lathi and Vijendra a ballam. …
Bachpan Bachao Andolan filed a public‑interest writ petition under Article 32 seeking a mandamus directing the Union of India to devise and implement a national action plan to curb drug, alcohol and substance abuse among children. The Court noted the alarming rise in substance use among India’s 44 …
Mukarrab and Arshad were convicted for murder and related offences committed in 1994 and sentenced to life imprisonment. They later claimed they were juveniles at the time of the offence, invoking Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, despite having raised …
The appellants Mumtaz alias Muntyaz and Dilshad alias Pappu were convicted under Sections 302 and 34 IPC for setting fire to the victim Pawan Kumar, who later died of burn injuries. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony and a dying declaration recorded by a Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, which …
Parag Bhat, alleged to be a juvenile, claimed minority based on school certificates, but the certificates were found forged or doubtful. The Juvenile Justice Board, after noting the discrepancies, referred the matter to a medical board which, through ossification tests, determined the appellant to …
The petitioner, Mohd. Feroz Khan, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime committed on 2 August 1999. He contended that he was 17 years old at the time of the offence and therefore fell within the ambit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, …
Ram Narain was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1978. After serving more than ten years, he applied before the Juvenile Justice Board, presenting a school transfer certificate that showed he was 15 years, 11 months old at the time of the 1976 murder. The Board …
The appellant Upendra Pradhan was convicted for murder under IPC sections 302 and 34, based on the High Court's reversal of an acquittal granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence and that the benefit of doubt should apply, …
The appellant, Darga Ram @ Gunga, was convicted by the trial court and the Rajasthan High Court for the rape and murder of a seven‑year‑old girl, Kamala, based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime scene, blood‑group matches, and injuries on his body. The Supreme Court examined whether …
Mahesh Jogi was convicted for an offence committed on 20 January 1985 when he was 17 years and 4 months old. The conviction and sentence were imposed before the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether Jogi …
The petitioner, convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for a murder committed on 18 June 1997, claimed that he was only 17 years old at the time of the offence and therefore entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Supreme Court examined …
The accused A‑1 to A‑4 entered the residence of PW‑1 armed with knives and assaulted PW‑1, his family and a friend, resulting in the death of PW‑1’s wife Sayeeda. The trial court convicted them under Sections 302, 307, 149, 109, 324 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed life imprisonment and …
The appellant was convicted under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for raping and intimidating the prosecutrix. The trial court and the High Court upheld the conviction based on medical testimony that semen was found on the victim's underwear and that the accused sustained injuries …
The appellant was charged with murder, attempt to murder and rape under Sections 302, 201 and 376 of the IPC. He claimed to be a juvenile, producing a school certificate that stated his date of birth as 15‑01‑1991, which would make him 15 years old at the time of the alleged crime (16‑11‑2006). The …
Shabnam Hashmi filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a declaration that the right to adopt and to be adopted is a fundamental right under Article 21 and that adoption should be permitted irrespective of religion, caste or creed. The petition also asked the Union of India to enact an …
The Supreme Court heard a writ petition concerning the exploitation of children in orphanages in Tamil Nadu and the failure of several States and Union Territories to implement protective legislation. Earlier orders dated 3 January 2013 and 7 February 2013 had directed the States to operationalise …
In 1995 Ajahar Ali forcibly grabbed the hair of 16‑year‑old Nasima Begum, kissed her and caused a cut on her lip. He was convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine. The appellant appealed, arguing that the 18‑year delay, his …
Nagoor Pichai @ Badusha was convicted under IPC s.302 for murdering his paternal uncle and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was 19 years 8 months old at the time of the offence and 22 years 9 months old at conviction. He applied for bail, contending that the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 …
The appellant Ranjeet Goswami was charged with offences under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of the IPC and claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offences, relying on a school leaving certificate showing a birth date of 10‑05‑1991. The Juvenile Justice Board, after obtaining a medical …
A gang‑rape on 16‑12‑2012 involved a juvenile who was placed before a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). Dr. Subramanian Swamy and others approached the JJB seeking impleadment and an interpretation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 so that the juvenile could be tried as …
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 …
The Supreme Court heard a batch of writ petitions challenging Sections 2(k), 2(1), 15, 16, 17, 19 and 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, on the ground that the age limit of 18 years for juveniles was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, …
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 …
The appellant Jarnail Singh was convicted under IPC sections 366, 376(g) and 120‑B for kidnapping and raping a girl who was later found to be a minor. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution's evidence, including the victim's statements under Section 164 CrPC, forensic reports, and corroboration …
Bharat Bhushan was convicted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court for raping an 11‑year‑old girl under IPC s.376 and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. He contended that, being a juvenile (under 18) at the time of the offence, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of …
The respondent, a serving army soldier, was tried by a General Court Martial (GCM) for six offences including absence without leave, theft of ammunition and possession of a counterfeit seal, receiving dismissal and seven years' rigorous imprisonment. He contended that some offences were committed …
The Supreme Court of India disposed of multiple appeals arising from the 1993 Bombay serial bomb blasts, which killed 257 people and injured 713. The Designated Court under TADA had convicted numerous accused, sentencing most to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence, …
The appellants Subodh Nath and Paritosh were convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC for the murder of Ashutosh. Paritosh was 16 years old at the time of the offence, raising the question of whether the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended, applied to an …
The appellant, Kamlendra Singh (Pappu Singh), was convicted under IPC sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 341 (wrongful restraint) with a common intention charge. He contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence (27 August 1993) and produced a high‑school mark‑sheet and admission …
Stephanie Joan Becker, an American citizen, applied under Sections 7 and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, to be appointed guardian of a 10‑year‑old Indian orphan named Tina and to take her abroad for adoption. The trial court and the Delhi High Court rejected the applications, holding that …
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 …
The appellant, Ashwani Kumar Saxena, was convicted of murder under IPC s.302 r.w. s.27 Arms Act and appealed, claiming he was a juvenile at the time of the offence (19‑Oct‑2008). He produced school mark‑sheets and the school admission register showing a birth date of 24‑Oct‑1990, while the trial …
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 …
Jodhbir Singh was arrested for possession of 2 kg of heroin under the NDPS Act. He claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the offence, producing a school leaving certificate and a State Council certificate showing his date of birth as 20‑07‑1996. The Sessions Court and the High Court rejected his …
The father of a 13½‑year‑old girl (appellant) appealed against the trial and High Court orders that allowed the accused, Vijay Kumar (respondent No.2), to be tried as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The courts had relied on school records showing a …
Amit Singh was convicted of multiple offences, including murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a writ petition under Article 32, claiming that he was a juvenile (under 18) at the time of the offence on 1 May 1999, based on his birth certificate and school records showing a birth date …
An FIR was lodged under Sections 302 and 307 IPC against Shah Nawaj. His mother applied to the Juvenile Justice Board claiming he was a minor, relying on his school mark sheet and school leaving certificate showing a birth date of 18‑06‑1989. The Board declared him a juvenile, but the Additional …
The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ filed by Bachpan Bachao Andolan seeking protection for children employed in Indian circuses, who were subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse and denied education. The Court examined whether such employment violated the children’s …
The Supreme Court examined appeals filed by Childline India Foundation and the State of Maharashtra against the Bombay High Court’s order acquitting three accused of sexual and physical abuse of children in Anchorage Shelter Homes in Mumbai. The trial court had convicted the accused under IPC …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The accused Vikas Chaudhary and co‑accused abducted a young man, killed him and thereafter made repeated ransom calls to the victim's parents. The petitioner argued that the offence under IPC s.364A was completed at the time of abduction and that he was a juvenile when the offence was committed, …
Mohan Mali and another were convicted under IPC sections 302, 324 and 326 and sentenced to life imprisonment. One co‑accused, Dhanna Lal (appellant No.2), claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of …
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 …
The appellant, father of a murder victim, challenged a High Court order that the accused (Respondent No.1) be tried as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The accused had filed an application under Section 49 of the Act claiming he was under 18 on the …
The Supreme Court examined the conviction of two appellants, Raju and Mangli, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Ishwar. The incident arose after the deceased misbehaved with women at a marriage ceremony, leading the accused to assault him; the …
The appellant, Ram Suresh Singh, appealed against a High Court order that held the accused, Prabhat Singh, to be a juvenile on the basis of school admission register entries showing a birth date of 10‑02‑1987. The trial magistrate had appointed a Medical Board which estimated the accused's age to be …
Hari Ram was arrested in 1998 for offences under the IPC and the trial court initially held him to be a juvenile (under 16) and sent the case to the Juvenile Justice Board. The Rajasthan High Court later held he was over 16 and applied the 1986 Juvenile Act, rejecting the claim of juvenility. On …
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, …
The appellant, Dina Nath (Daulat), appealed against his conviction, asserting that he was a minor at the time of the offence committed on 15 June 1990, based on his claimed birth date of 6 March 1973. The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant qualified as a "juvenile in …
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 …
The case involves the rape and murder of a six‑year‑old girl whose body was discovered after four accused were seen throwing it from a gunny bag. The trial court convicted the accused under IPC sections 302, 34, 201, 34, 376 and 377 based solely on circumstantial evidence and sentenced them to …
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 …
Rajesh Mahatha was arrested for offences under Sections 304B and 306 of the IPC and claimed to be a juvenile, seeking protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Juvenile Justice Board, after obtaining a medical board opinion that his age was between 17‑18 …
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 …
The case involved the kidnapping, ransom demands and subsequent murder of Parkash Chadha. Respondent No.1, Vikas Choudhary, initially did not claim to be a juvenile but later applied for transfer to the Juvenile Justice Board, producing a school leaving certificate. The trial court relied on a …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The appellants Silak Ram, Narotam alias Raja and Bijender alias Binder were convicted for the murder of Jagbir under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. The prosecution relied on three eye‑witnesses (PW10, PW11 and PW14); PW11’s testimony was found cogent and consistent with medical evidence, while PW10’s …
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, …
The appellants Murari Thakur and Sudhir Thakur, along with a third accused, were convicted for the murder of a 14‑year‑old boy, Bal Krishna Mishra, on 26 August 1998. The prosecution proved that Murari held the victim's legs, Sudhir sat on his back, and the third accused cut the victim's throat, …
The Supreme Court examined the plight of children who reside in jails with their mother‑prisoners, whether under‑trial or convicted, and found that existing provisions were inadequate. Relying on constitutional guarantees (Articles 14, 15, 21, 23, 24, 39, 42, 45, 46, 47) and international …
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 …
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 …
Eighteen persons were charged under Sections 302 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Parshuram Bind and his father. The prosecution relied mainly on two eyewitnesses, PW5 and PW6, who identified all the accused except for Accused No.12 (not identified by PW5) and Accused …
