Claim of Juvenility VII

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Since, at commencement of 2015 Act, proceedings were pending before High Court, Section 25 of 2015 Act would be attracted [Satya Deo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 555]. It would mean, The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 would be applicable including Rule 12. This aspect has also been examined in great detail in Hariram v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211. In present case, determination of age would be as per The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which raised age of juvenility from 16 years to 18 years, and 2007 Rules framed therein.

In a case where an exact assessment of age was not possible, considering conflicting reports and documents, a benefit of Rule 12(3)(b) of 2007 Rules ought to have been given. Pawan is around 43 years and has undergone imprisonment for 4½ years. Pawan be realised forthwith, unless required in some other crime.

– Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Pawan Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Criminal Appeal No. 3547 of 2023].

Rudrajyoti Nath Ray's avatar
'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.