[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Golu Alias Jitendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8712
1 MCRC-11787-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11787 of 2026
GOLU ALIAS JITENDRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Aditya Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Anurag Sharma - Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed
assailing the impugned order dated 27.02.2026, passed in Criminal Appeal
No. 136 of 2016 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District
Morena. By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner for a
declaration of juvenility and for the separation of his case for trial before the
Juvenile Justice Board was turned down.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that an FIR, bearing Crime No.
117/2007, was registered against the present petitioners. Following the
investigation, a charge sheet was filed, charges were framed, and the trial
proceeded. Upon hearing the parties, the Trial Court convicted the
petitioners and other co-accused persons under Section 148 of the IPC,
sentencing them to two years of RI with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, and further
convicted them under Section 336 of the IPC, sentencing them to three
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8712
2 MCRC-11787-2026
months of RI with a fine of Rs. 150/- each, along with default stipulations.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
19.07.2016, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 136/2016 before
the Court of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena.
During the pendency of the said appeal, the learned Appellate Court was
pleased to suspend the jail sentence of the petitioners. While the appeal was
pending, the petitioners filed applications dated 20.10.2021 and 02.11.2023
seeking a declaration of juvenility on the ground that on the date of the
alleged incident (07.04.2007), both petitioners were below 18 years of age.
This is evident from their Class 10th mark sheets and relevant documents,
which record the date of birth of Petitioner No. 1 (Golu @ Jitendra) as
04.06.1989 and Petitioner No. 2 (Kanha @ Ashish) as 07.05.1989. These
records demonstrate that both petitioners were legally juveniles at the time of
the offense.
4. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court erred in law
by ignoring the statutory mandate contained in Section 9(2) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. This provision specifically
mandates that whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court, the
Court shall conduct an inquiry and record a finding regarding the person's
age. The provision further mandates that such a claim must be recognized
even after the final disposal of the case. Thus, the learned Appellate Court
was legally bound to conduct an inquiry into the age of the petitioners rather
than dismissing the applications outright.
5. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court failed to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8712
3 MCRC-11787-2026
appreciate that the plea of juvenility is governed by beneficial and welfare-
oriented legislation intended to protect children in conflict with the law. The
observation that the applications were filed merely to delay proceedings is
erroneous, as provisions relating to juvenility must be interpreted liberally.
The claim raised by the petitioners ought to have been duly considered and
decided on its merits.
6. It is further submitted that the impugned order results in a violation
of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, as the petitioners have been deprived of statutory protection without a
proper inquiry. Such denial of an opportunity to establish juvenility amounts
to a denial of fair procedure. In support of these contentions, counsel for the
petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Surajdev Mahto vs. State of Bihar [(2022) 11 SCC 800], wherein it was held
that "even if a plea of juvenility is raised at a late stage, the Court is required
to examine the claim and determine the age in accordance with the law rather
than dismissing the application on technical grounds." In the present case,
the learned Appellate Court failed to follow this settled principle, rendering
the impugned order legally unsustainable.
7. Per contra, Counsel for the State has supported the impugned order
and prayed for its dismissal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record, this Court finds that the mandate of Section 9(2) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is categorical. A plea of
juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8712
4 MCRC-11787-2026
The learned Appellate Court, instead of dismissing the applications on the
grounds of delay, was duty-bound to conduct an inquiry into the age of the
petitioners as per the settled legal position in Surajdev Mahto (supra) .
Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 is set aside. The matter
is remanded to the learned Appellate Court with a direction to conduct an
inquiry into the juvenility of the petitioners in accordance with the law and
pass a fresh order on its merits.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)
