Rajesh Ram Lohar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3820 Chatt

                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                               Order Sheet

                                          CRA No. 147 of 2016

                          Rajesh Ram Lohar Versus State of Chhattisgarh




21/12/2021

Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate for appellant.

Ms. Shivali Dubey, PL for State.

Heard on application filed under Section 9(2) r/w Section 94 of Juvenile Justice

(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the date of incident in this case is

19.2.2009. The appellant was a juvenile on this date. The date of birth of the appellant as

reflected in the mark-sheet of the middle school (Annexure-A) is 1.7.1993, hence, the

appellant had not completed the age of 18 years on the date of incident.

It is submitted that the appellant had the entitlement to be tried as juvenile offender,

however, this ground was never raised in the trial because of which the appellant has been

tried and convicted in the case regarding which this appeal has been filed.

It is submitted that Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015(for short 'the Act, 2015) provides that a claim may be raised before any

court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court of Devi Lal Vs. State of

M.P., reported in (2021) 5 SCC 292. It is submitted that in this case, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court had directed for inquiry on the point of juvenality of the appellant in the appeal before

the Supreme Court, therefore, this Court is also empowered to pass such an order, hence, it

is prayed that this application be allowed and inquiry on the point of juvenility of the

appellant be ordered.

Learned State counsel opposes the application submitting that the appellant never

raised the ground of juvenility at the stage of trial whereas he had opportunity available all the time. The present application is baseless, hence, it may be dismissed.

Considered on the submissions.

The age of the appellant has been shown as 18 years approximate in the charge

sheet, and there is no proof present regarding the date of birth of the appellant in the whole

charge-sheet. The appellant herein placing reliance on the proof of date of birth, that is the

mark-sheet of the middle school filed by him in support of the application. Therefore, it

appears that the ground raised by the appellant has some substance.

In the case of Devilal (supra), a plea of juvenality was raised before the Supreme

Court for the first time. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Section 20 of Juvenile Justice

(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 enables the Court to consider and determine the

juvenility of a person even after conviction by the regular Court and also empowers to the

case to Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection

of Children) Act, 2000. The Section 25 of the Act, 2015 is Special provision in respect of

pending case, according to which all proceedings in respect of a child alleged or found to be

in conflict with law pending before any Board or court on the date of commencement of this

Act, shall be continued in that Board or court as if this Act had not been enacted. Hence, this

provision under Section 25 of the Act, 2015 empowers the Court to follow the procedure as

laid down in the Act, 2000.

Clearly the offence that is alleged to have been committed by the appellant was

committed during the time when the Act 2000 was in force. Hence, in view of these

observations and also in view of the guidance from the Devilal(supra), the judgment of the

Supreme Court, we are of this view that this application is fit to be allowed.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. The Learned Sessions Judge, Surguja is

directed to make an inquiry on the question of juvenility of the appellant, on the date of

incident in this case i.e. 19.2.2009 by taking all appropriate steps and giving opportunity of

hearing to the appellant and also the State. The inquiry be concluded at the earliest

preferably within a period of three months from today and report be submitted before this

Court.

List this case in the month of April, 2022.

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Session Judge, Surguja

at Ambikapur.

                              Sd/-                                        Sd/-
                        (R.C.S. Samant)                           (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                            Judge                                         Judge




Nisha