Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007

31 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SURESHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. R1: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: DEVI SINGH

2025 INSC 91831 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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 first school he at

VIJAY SINGHversusSTATE OF DELHI

2012 INSC 36129 August 2012Case Partly allowed

Vijay Singh was convicted under Section 307 IPC for stabbing PW‑4 on 11‑03‑1998 and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. He later claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence, relying on a school leaving certificate showing a date of birth of 01‑12‑1981, which would make him 16 years old on the incid

MOHAN MALI & ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P.

2010 INSC 25128 April 2010Disposed off

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 Children) Act, 2000,

BHARAT BHUSHANversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013 INSC 28326 April 2013Disposed off

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 Children) Act, 2000, parti

SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

2019 INSC 81625 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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 certificate, Aadhaar

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

RAJUversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

2019 INSC 25322 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

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 (Judicial) to conduct an a

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

SHABNAM HASHMIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 11119 February 2014Disposed off

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 optional law on adoption. T

RISHIPAL SINGH SOLANKIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2021 INSC 75218 November 2021Dismissed

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 that the admission for

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

MAHESH JOGIversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2014 INSC 104316 December 2014Disposed off

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 qualified as a juvenile und

MANOJ @ MONU @ VISHAL CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR

2022 INSC 18615 February 2022Dismissed

The appellant, Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary, was initially declared a juvenile in conflict with law but the High Court set aside that finding and ordered him to stand trial as an adult. He sought to prove his juvenility on the basis of a birth certificate, a school leaving certificate, an ossification test report, a

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

ASHWANI KUMAR SAXENAversusSTATE OF M.P.

2012 INSC 39513 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed

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 court relied on ossific

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

VINOD KATARAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2022 INSC 94912 September 2022Directions issued

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 Justice (Care and Prot

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

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusANURUDH & ANR

2026 INSC 479 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that granted bail to the accused Anurudh and directed that a medical board determine the victim's age in all POCSO cases. The accused was charged under IPC sections 363 and 366 and POCSO sections 7 and 8 for allegedly abducting a 12‑year‑old girl. The High

AMIT SINGHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2011 INSC 5528 August 2011Case Allowed

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 of 10 May 1982. The

STEPHANIE JOAN BECKERversusSTATE AND ORS.

2013 INSC 848 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

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 Becker, at 53 years o

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

NAZIM & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 11846 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerns the murder of a ten‑year‑old boy, Muntiyaz Ali, whose body was found on 6 June 2007. The appellants Nazim, Aftab and Arman were convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 120‑B IPC based largely on the testimony of three prosecution witnesses and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court examined whether

HARI RAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

2009 INSC 6935 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

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 appeal, the Supreme Cou

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

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusANOOP SINGH

2015 INSC 4773 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted Anoop Singh for kidnapping, assault and rape of a girl, alleging she was under 16 years old at the time of the offence. The trial court convicted Singh based on the girl’s birth certificate and middle‑school examination certificate, despite a two‑day discrepancy between them, and

XYZversusABHISHEIK & ANR

2022 INSC 9052 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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 certificate, all of

JARNAIL SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2013 INSC 3781 July 2013Dismissed

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 by her father, and r

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