OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-2012-4-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on April 13,2012

OM PRAKASH Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Rajasthan And Anr Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAM DEO CHAUHAN ALIAS RAJ NATH CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MANOJ VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-7-929] [REFERRED TO]
KUMBHA RAM, S/O KALU RAM @ NAND LAL, THROUGH HIS PATERNAL UNCLE (CHACHA) HARENDRA S/O SHANKAR LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2015-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
ABID ALIAS GUDDU VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2024-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
MD. NADEEM IQBAL @ NADEEM IQWAL @ ARMAN, SON OF MD. MUSTEQUE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF BIHAR VS. ONKAR NATH SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2017-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
ABHAY KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKUMAR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2013-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
SIYARAM SONI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-121] [REFERRED TO]
JUVENILE X VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-4-74] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM BEHARI MISHRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
PARASKUMAR NANUBHAI KOLI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-12-351] [REFERRED TO]
GURJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-571] [REFERRED TO]
ROOP KISHORE VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-265] [REFERRED TO]
MUNESH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-263] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL WADOOD VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-374] [REFERRED TO]
SOLU @ SUBHAM SINGH (MINOR) VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-52] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD ALIAS DANTLA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-118] [REFERRED TO]
SWAPAN ROY VS. C.B.I. [LAWS(CAL)-2013-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
TRIKAMBHAI KAVABHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-227] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
MINOR SON OF MOOLCHAND VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-158] [REFERRED TO]
SANDIP SAMADHAN SHIRSAT @ RAGHU ROKDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-10-115] [REFERRED TO]
NAKUL TURI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-11-47] [REFERRED TO]
MURSHID ANSARI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-9-145] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR VS. SHUBAM SANGRA [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-66] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. JAI KISHUN SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
BIMAL KUMARI, D/O VISHESHWAR PD. SINGH ADHYAKSH, KALYAN NARI SHAKTI MAHILA VIKASH SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITTEE LTD. C/O RAMDYAL MAHTO, VILLAGE VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
BAHADUR MAHTO SON OF LATE NATHUNI MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-11-70] [REFERRED TO]
VITHABAI W/O. GOVIND PAWALE & ANR. VS. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, BHOKAR & ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-102] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH YADAV @ SONU VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2012-12-207] [REFERRED TO]
KRIPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-421] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. SHAKIL KHAN (JUVENILE) VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-292] [REFERRED TO]
IDRISH (MINOR) VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-540] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD YUNUS VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-589] [REFERRED TO]
SUMIT KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-343] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
SONU (MINOR) VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
ANKUSH PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-7-84] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL KANNAUJIYA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-153] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-226] [REFERRED TO]
SOROKHYBAM MEMCHA DEVI @ SOROKKHAIBAM OMITA DEVI @ UMITA @ OMITA VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [LAWS(CAL)-2014-7-154] [REFERRED]
AJJU VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-109] [REFERRED TO]
CHILD IN CONFLICT VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2023-2-46] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-4-229] [REFERRED TO]
ONKAR NATH SINGH @ SHERU SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH GURJAR VS. STATE OF M.P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-2-255] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP SINGH GURJAR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-5-49] [REFERRED TO]
KAPIL VERMA VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-129] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN KUMAR, JUVENILE, MINOR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KANAUJIA, THRU FATHER RAM BAKASH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-554] [REFERRED TO]
HARNARAYAN GUPTA VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
RISHI TALWAR VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
JUVENILE X VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-175] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-211] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDANA RANI BARIK VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-11-80] [REFERRED TO]
MINOR X VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-97] [REFERRED TO]
MANGESH RAJBHAR VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-330] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY YADAV VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-206] [REFERRED TO]
ANUJ @ PRASOON SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-133] [REFERRED]
HASHIM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-59] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-99] [REFERRED TO]
BHIM @ SAGAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-501] [REFERRED TO]
XYZ VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2023-2-65] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. SALMAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-3-158] [REFERRED TO]
PARAG BHATI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-95] [REFERRED TO]
MD. SAFIQUR RAHMAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2022-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-246] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN GUPTA VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2013-8-271] [REFERRED]
LEENA KATIYAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-393] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJESH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-84] [REFERRED TO]
EX (CHANGED NAME) VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-174] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF J&K VS. SHUBAM SANGRA [LAWS(J&K)-2019-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
DEBABRATA SAHOO @ MITHUN @ DEBAPRASAD SAHOO VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
WASIM ANSARI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-6-24] [REFERRED TO]
RIZWAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-156] [REFERRED TO]
IRFAN VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA YADAV VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-160] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-277] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVASANI SAI MANIDEEP VS. STATE OF A.P [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA SINHA WIFE OF SRI KAILASH SINGH VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. [LAWS(PAT)-2018-1-452] [REFERRED TO]
ARBIND PRASAD ALIAS SUSHIE KUMAR VERMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAMSWARUP VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
NAZIR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BHAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-2-350] [REFERRED TO]
SAHJAD VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-315] [REFERRED]
DURVASA DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-181] [REFERRED]
PANKAJ VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-393] [REFERRED TO]
DILEEP KUMAR GIRI (JUVENILE) VS. THE STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT VERMA THRU. HIS FATHER RAJESH VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI MD VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2013-7-175] [REFERRED TO]
SONU KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2024-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. MOHAN LAL. [LAWS(UTN)-2021-2-10] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The Judgment and order dated 19.08.2010 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in SBCRR No.597 of 2009 is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the appellant Om Prakash who is a hapless father of an innocent girl of 13 years who was subjected to rape by the alleged accused-Respondent No.2 Vijay Kumar @ Bhanwroo who has been allowed to avail the benefit of protection under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, although the courts below could not record a finding that he, in fact, was a juvenile since he had not attained the age of 18 years on the date of incident. Hence this Special Leave Petition in which leave has been granted after condoning the delay.
(2.)Thus the questions inter alia which require consideration in this appeal are:-
(i) whether the respondent/accused herein who is alleged to have committed an offence of rape under Section 376 IPC and other allied sections along with a co-accused who already stands convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC, can be allowed to avail the benefit of protection to a juvenile in order to refer him for trial to a juvenile court under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (shortly referred to as the Juvenile Justice Act ) although the trial court and the High Court could not record a conclusive finding of fact that the respondent-accused was below the age of 18 years on the date of the incident

(ii) whether the principle and benefit of benevolent legislation relating to Juvenile Justice Act could be applied in cases where two views regarding determination of the age of child/accused was possible and the so-called child could not be held to be a juvenile on the basis of evidence adduced

(iii) whether medical evidence and other attending circumstances would be of any value and assistance while determining the age of a juvenile, if the academic record certificates do not conclusively prove the age of the accused

(iv) whether reliance should be placed on medical evidence if the certificates relating to academic records is deliberately with held in order to conceal the age of the accused and authenticity of the medical evidence regarding the age is under challenge

(3.)Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable object of providing a separate forum or a special court for holding trial of children/juvenile by the juvenile court as it was felt that children become delinquent by force of circumstance and not by choice and hence they need to be treated with care and sensitivity while dealing and trying cases involving criminal offence. But when an accused is alleged to have committed a heinous offence like rape and murder or any other grave offence when he ceased to be a child on attaining the age of 18 years, but seeks protection of the Juvenile Justice Act under the ostensible plea of being a minor, should such an accused be allowed to be tried by a juvenile court or should he be referred to a competent court of criminal jurisdiction where the trial of other adult persons are held.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.