37 years after raping a minor, Rajasthan man, now 53, is declared a juvenile
The man, now almost 53, was convicted and sentenced in February 1993 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer, for rape and wrongful confinement. This was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court in July last year.
However, his lawyers claimed before the SC bench, comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, that he was a juvenile at the time of the incident in November 1988. They said that his date of birth is September 14, 1972, and therefore, on the date of the incident, his age would be 16 years 2 months and 3 days. Since he was a juvenile, the proceedings as held cannot sustain, especially the sentence, they said.
They had also prayed that an inquiry be held to determine his age 'so that he may get the benefits of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.'
In January this year, the SC directed the Ajmer District and Sessions Judge to conduct an inquiry into the claims of the petitioner, complete its findings in eight weeks and report to the SC. After the school admission and other documents confirmed his date of birth in September 1972, the SC ruled, 'The Appellant was therefore a juvenile on the date of commission of the crime.'
With the issue of age not being raised in earlier courts, the SC said that 'authoritative judgments passed by this Court … (have) categorically held that the plea of juvenility can be raised before any court and has to be recognised at any stage, even after disposal of the case.'
'Consequently, the sentence as imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court will have to be set aside, as the same cannot sustain. We order accordingly,' the SC said, referring the case to the Board for passing appropriate orders and directed the man to appear before the Board on September 15, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
35 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Allahabad High Court sets aside Juvenile Justice Board, Pocso court orders; directs minor to be tried as ‘juvenile' and not as an adult
Stating that law is an evolving concept and has to keep pace with time, the Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal revision filed by a minor who had challenged the Juvenile Justice Board and Kaushambi Pocso court orders directing that he be tried as an adult in an alleged rape case involving a minor girl. The court observed, 'This court has no hesitation to hold that the nefarious effects of the visual mediums like television, internet, and social media on adolescents are not being controlled, nor it appears that the government can control the same, to prevent its deleterious effect on the adolescents, due to the uncontrollable nature of technologies involved. The 'Nirbhaya case' was an exception and not a general rule and all juveniles cannot be subjected and tried like adult without proper consideration of the overall social and psychological effects on their psyche.' The criminal revision claimed that the impugned orders wrongly held the revisionist to be tried as an adult, and his assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board, as well as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) court, is not in accordance with the law. The counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the case of both the assessment and medical reports, the experts held that the psychological assessment of the juvenile was suggestive of a mild deficit in intellectual functioning. But the Board had relied upon the allegations made in the First Information Report and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by ignoring the clinical psychologist report and held that it was not bound by the reports submitted by the experts. The counsel argued that denying the expert report will frustrate the provisions of Section 15 (1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The counsel for the State submitted that although the preliminary assessment report and the report of psychologist are in favour of the minor boy, the Board has recorded clear findings that the revisionist was able to understand the consequence of crime committed by him and, therefore, the Board was not bound to accept the report of the psychologist and held that the revisionist be tried as an adult. 'There is nothing on record to indicate that the revisionist is a predator on the prowl and is prone to repeating the offence without any provocation. He never indulged in any such or other offence earlier. Maturity of his mind has not been certified by the psychologist. Merely because he committed a heinous crime he cannot be put to par with an adult when his social exposure was also found to be deficient by the psychologist,' the high court stated in its order. 'In view of above consideration, the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the courts below are set aside. Criminal Revision is allowed. The revisionist is directed to be tried as a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with law,' the court added.
NDTV
36 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Lok Sabha To First Take Up Motion To Remove Justice Yashwant Verma": Kiren Rijiju
Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju stated that the motion to remove Justice Yashwant Verma, who remains in trouble after burnt wads of cash were recovered from his residence following a fire incident, will be moved in Lok Sabha first, as per the rules. He said that the removal of Justice Verma should be a joint decision. "The motion for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma will be raised in the Lok Sabha, and then subsequently, it will be concurred by the Rajya Sabha. All political parties have agreed that the removal of Justice Yashwant Verma has to be a joint call," Rijiju told reporters here. He emphasised that initiating the impeachment process of Justice Verma was a collective responsibility of the Parliament, not just the government alone. "We have been making efforts in relation to the matter of Justice Yashwant Verma. We have clearly stated that it is not only the government's efforts, but the entire Parliament is responsible for addressing the issue of corruption in the judiciary and removing judges from the Supreme Court or High Court. We should not be divided on this issue," the Union Minister said. The centre is working to form a committee to probe allegations levelled against Justice Yashwant Verma, government sources said on July 23. This comes after Rijiju stated that signatures of over 100 MPs have been collected for the impeachment process against Justice Verma, who is currently under scrutiny following the discovery of burnt cash at his residence. "The signature (collection) is underway, and it has crossed 100 already," Rijiju said while responding to a question about the status of the requisite signatures of MPs for the impeachment exercise against Justice Verma. When asked about whether the Parliament will take up the issue in this monsoon session scheduled to start on July 21, the Union Minister had said, "In the Justice Varma case, the process will be undertaken together by all parties. This is not the move by the government alone." "I can't comment on any business in terms of priority until and unless the matter is passed by the BAC (Business Advisory Committee) with the approval of the chair. It is difficult to make an announcement outside," he added. On July 21, Members of Parliament submitted a memorandum to the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to remove High Court Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the cash discovery row. A total of 145 Lok Sabha members signed the impeachment motion against Justice Varma under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the from various parties, including the Congress, TDP, JDU, JDS, Jan Sena Party, AGP, SS (Shinde), LJSP, SKP, and CPM, signed the memorandum. Notable signatories include MPs Anurag Singh Thakur, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, Rajiv Pratap Rudy, PP Chaudhary, Supriya Sule, KC Venugopal, and others. Earlier, the sources had informed about the formation of a committee that is likely to include a judge of the Supreme Court, a chief justice from any of the High Courts and a distinguished jurist. The notices for the removal of Justice Varma were given on the first day of the monsoon session of Parliament.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Big Shots, Ullu, ALTT, Desiflix, Mojflix and 20 other OTT apps banned: What government's 'ban order' says
Government has banned public access to over OTT platforms including Ullu, ALTT and Desiflix, reports news agency ANI. The banned apps and websites were found in violation of various laws, including Section 67 and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The report quotes an unnamed source who said 'There was hardly any storyline, theme or message in a social context'. According to the agency report, the action was taken in consultation with MHA, MWCD, MeitY, Department of Legal Affairs, industry bodies FICCI and CII, along with experts in women's and child rights. The report says that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has directed Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disable public access for publishing obscene, vulgar and pornographic content. In its official notification, the ministry emphasised that the intermediaries are responsible for removing or disabling access to unlawful information under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. What Section 67 and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 says The Section 67 and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deal with the publication and transmission of obscene and sexually implicit content in electronic form. The key difference is that Section 67 applies to general obscenity, while Section 67A deals with more graphic, sexually explicit material. The punishments under Section 67A are more severe due to the nature of the content. Section 67 of the IT Act punishes the online publication or transmission of obscene or vulgar material that could deprave or corrupt readers, with imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh for the first offence, and up to five years in jail and Rs 10 lakh fine for repeat offences. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Section 67A, on the other hand, deals specifically with material that contains sexually explicit acts or conduct, with stricter penalties—up to five years in jail and Rs 10 lakh fine for the first offence, and up to seven years imprisonment and Rs 10 lakh fine for subsequent offences. OTT apps banned by government As per ANI report, 26 websites and 14 apps have been banned by the government. Names in the list of banned OTT platforms include ALTT ULLU Big Shots App Desiflix Boomex Navarasa Lite Gulab App Kangan App Bull App Jalva App Wow Entertainment Look Entertainment Hitprime Feneo ShowX Sol Talkies Adda TV HotX VIP Hulchul App MoodX NeonX VIP Fugi Mojflix Triflicks
