Umesh Yadav vs The State Of Bihar

2025 INSC 1336 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1072 OF 2018

UMESH YADAV & ORS. …Appellant (s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present appeal arises from the judgment 1 of the

High Court2 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 374 of 1993.

2. The Trial Court3 convicted eight accused persons for

offences punishable under Sections 302/149 and 323/149 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for life.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.11.20 16:28:07 IST Reason:

1 Dated 14.12.2017 2 High Court of Judicature at Patna 3 Additional Sessions Judge I, Gaya

Page 1 of 6

3. All eight accused persons challenged their conviction

and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No.374 of 1993 before

the High Court. The appeal qua Genda Pandit, Kauleshwar

Pandit and Ramji Yadav abated as they died during the

pendency of the appeal. The High Court confirmed the

conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and

dismissed the appeal vide the impugned order.

4. Appellant Nos.1 and 2, namely Umesh Yadav and

Ganesh Yadav (both sons of Jitan Yadav), raised claim of

juvenility before this Court for the first time, arguing that they

were less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident

(August 30, 1988). As the claim of juvenility was not raised in

the courts below, this Court vide order dated 25.11.2019

directed the Trial Court to conduct an enquiry and submit a

report. As far as Appellant No. 2/Ganesh Yadav is concerned,

the report suggests that there was no documentary evidence to

prove his date of birth. Ossification test was conducted. The

Medical Board submitted the Report dated 03.03.2020 on the

basis of which, the age of Ganesh Yadav appeared to be 19

years.

Page 2 of 6

5. The issue as to how the age, as determined in

ossification test, is to be considered has been gone into by this

Court in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of

Jammu & Kashmir,4 in which it has been observed that when

school records or reliable certificates are unavailable or

suspected to be tampered with, courts may rely on medical

determination with a margin of error of 2 years on the lower or

higher side applied to it. Relevant para therefrom is extracted

below:

“9. Detenu was arrested and detained on October 18, 1981. The report by the expert is dated May 3, 1982, that is nearly seven months after the date of detention. Growing in age day by day is an involuntary process and the anatomical changes in the structure of the body continuously occur. Even on normal calculation, if seven months are deducted from the approximate age opined by the expert, in October 1981 detenu was around 17 years of age, consequently the statement made in the petition turns out to be wholly true. However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side. Undoubtedly, therefore, the detenu was a young school-going boy. It equally appears that there was some upheaval in the educational institutions. This young school-going boy may be enthusiastic about the students' rights and on two different dates he marginally crossed the bounds of law.

4 (1982) 2 SCC 538

Page 3 of 6 It passes comprehension to believe that he can be visited with drastic measure of preventive detention. One cannot treat young people, may be immature, may be even slightly misdirected, may be a little more enthusiastic, with a sledge hammer. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case the detention order was wholly unwarranted and deserved to be quashed.”

6. Considering the reports submitted by the Additional

District and Sessions Judge-I, Gaya, and law laid down by this

Court in the aforesaid judgment, giving benefit of two years to

Appellant No.2/Ganesh Yadav from the age determined by the

ossification test, he can be said to be 17 years of age on the

date of commission of offence. Hence, he can be given the

benefit of being juvenile. Maximum punishment which can be

awarded to a juvenile under Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice

(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is 3 years of

detention in a special home. Ganesh Yadav is said to have

already undergone imprisonment of more than 8 years. Hence,

he deserves to be released immediately unless required in any

other case. Ordered accordingly.

7. Insofar as Appellant No.1/Umesh Yadav is concerned,

it was claimed that he was elder brother of Appellant

Page 4 of 6 No.2/Ganesh Yadav. There were lot of discrepancies in the

documents produced to prove his age. However, considering

the fact that he is admittedly elder brother of Ganesh Yadav,

whose age having been determined by ossification test as 19

years, the age of Umesh Yadav will be more that. Hence, he

cannot be given the benefit of being juvenile on the date of

commission of offence.

8. As far as the merits of controversy is concerned,

learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the

conviction. However, he submitted that in the case in hand,

the incident took place more than three decades back. There

have been no complaints against the appellants during their

period of custody. The life sentence awarded to them may be

reduced to a fixed term. This Court can exercise such a power

in terms of law laid down in Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @

Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka5.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted

that the appellants do not deserve any leniency in the matter.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and

considering the submissions made by them, especially the fact 5 (2023) 9 SCC 817: 2023 INSC 306

Page 5 of 6 that the incident took place more than 35 years back and the

appellants besides Umesh Yadav, whose age was not

ascertained, namely, Appellant No.3/Baleshwar Pandit and

Appellant No.4/Muneshwar Pandit are presently about 67 years

and 59 years respectively, in our opinion, the sentence

awarded to the three of them can be modified to a fixed term of

14 years of actual imprisonment. It needs to be mentioned

here that the case of Appellant No.5/Jitan Yadav has already

been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2018 for

non-compliance of pre-emptory order.

11. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent mentioned

above. The impugned judgment of the High Court is modified

accordingly.

..……..........................J. (RAJESH BINDAL)

……..........................J (MANMOHAN) New Delhi;

October 30, 2025.

Page 6 of 6