Sanjay Patel vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

M.A.No.1997 OF 2021 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.5604 of 2009

Sanjay Patel & Anr. …..Petitioners

Versus

The State of Uttar Pradesh …..Respondent ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Sanjay Patel …..Applicant

JUDGMENT

Abhay S. Oka, J.

1. The applicant­petitioner no.1 in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5604 of 2009

(accused no.2) was convicted by the Sessions Court on 16 th May 2006

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code. The applicant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

The offence was committed on 8th January 2004. Appeals preferred

Signature Not Verified by the applicant and others before the High Court of Allahabad were Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2022.04.13

dismissed. Being aggrieved, Special Leave Petitions (Crl.) Nos.5604­ 16:11:08 IST Reason:

1

5605 of 2009 were filed by the applicant and others. By the order

dated 13th August 2009, Special Leave Petition, as far as the present

applicant is concerned, was dismissed by this Court.

The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the

applicant­petitioner no.1 contending that the date of his birth is 16 th

May 1986 and, therefore, on the date of commission of the offence, he

was a juvenile. By relying upon various documents such as High

School results declared by the Board of High School and Intermediate

Education, Uttar Pradesh, the applicant has claimed that he was a

juvenile on the date of the incident.

By order dated 31st January 2022, this Court directed the

Juvenile Justice Board, District Maharajganj to hold an inquiry into

the claim of the applicant that he was a juvenile on the date of

commission of the offence. In terms of the said order, after holding

an inquiry, the Juvenile Justice Board has passed an order dated 4 th

March 2022 holding that the correct date of birth of the applicant is

16th May 1986. Therefore, on the date of commission of the offence,

his age was 17 years 07 months and 23 days. Oral and documentary

evidence was adduced before the Juvenile Justice Board during the

course of the inquiry. After considering the documentary evidence on

record, the aforesaid finding has been recorded by the Juvenile

2 Justice Board. This Order has not been challenged by the State and

is allowed to become final.

When the offence was committed, the provisions of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (‘the 2000 Act’) were

in force. As per the 2000 Act, only the Juvenile Justice Board

constituted under Section 4 thereof had jurisdiction to try a juvenile

in conflict with the law. Under Section 7A of the 2000 Act, an accused

was entitled to raise a claim of juvenility before any Court, even after

the final disposal of the case. Such a claim was required to be

determined in accordance with the provisions of the 2000 Act. Sub­

section (2) of Section 7A provided that if after holding an inquiry, the

Court found the accused to be juvenile on the date of commission of

the offence, the Court was under a mandate to forward the juvenile to

the Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate orders. Sub­

section (2) of Section 7A further provided that in such a case, the

sentence passed by Criminal Court shall be deemed to have no effect

in such a case.

In view of the categorical finding recorded in this case by the

competent Juvenile Justice Board, which is based on documentary

evidence, in view of sub­section (2) of Section 7A, the applicant is

required to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board. Under Section

15 of the 2000 Act, the most stringent action which could have been

3 taken against the applicant, was of sending the applicant to a special

home for a period of three years.

The certificate dated 01st August 2021 issued by Senior

Superintendent of the concerned jail at Lucknow, records that till 01 st

August 2021, the applicant has undergone the sentence for 17 years

and 03 days. Therefore, now it will be unjust to send the applicant to

the Juvenile Justice Board.

Therefore, we allow the application and direct that the

applicant – Sanjay Patel, accused no.2 in Sessions Trial No.28 of

2004 decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Maharajganj – shall be

forthwith set at liberty provided he is not required to be detained

under any other order of the competent Court.

The Miscellaneous Application is allowed in the above terms.

………………………………..J. [A.M. KHANWILKAR]

………………………………..J. [ABHAY S. OKA]

New Delhi April 13, 2022

4