5 days ago
37 years after raping a minor, Rajasthan man, now 53, is declared a juvenile
Thirty-seven years after he raped an 11-year-old girl in Rajasthan's Ajmer, a man was declared a juvenile by the Supreme Court, which upheld his conviction by lower courts but directed him to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) instead.
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.
