Appellants vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 6586 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Appellants vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30 December, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                     Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2008


 Imran @ Mana and others
                                                      ........Appellants

                                     Versus

 State of Uttarakhand
                                                      .....Respondent


 Present:-

        Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the appellants.
        Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State.



 Coram:        Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The appellant/applicant Mobin S/o Iqbal has been

convicted under Sections 302 and 393 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 298 of

2003, State v. Imran @ Mana and others, passed by the Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar ("Sessions

Trial"). The conviction was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court

vide judgment and order dated 20.03.2013. The challenge to the said

judgment was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on

26.08.2013 in SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 20312 of 2021, Imran @ Mana

v. State of Uttarakhand.

2. Subsequent to it, the appellant/applicant Mobin moved

an application from jail with the averments therein that on the date of

incident, he was a juvenile in conflict with law and, therefore,

accordingly proceeding may be undertaken. This communication was

received to this Court on 15.06.2021. On this application, a report was

sought from the police, which was submitted by Mr. Anshu

Chaudhary, Sub Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District

Haridwar. It does not give a clear finding regarding the age of the

appellant/applicant.

3. After hearing the parties, on 19.08.2025, this Court

requested the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to ascertain the age of

the appellant/applicant Mobin. The Court observed as follows:-

"6. We are of the considered view that, in the present matter, an inquiry is required to ascertain the correct date of birth and age of the applicant/appellant, Mobeen, as on the date of incident, i.e., 24.06.2003. Accordingly, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is requested to conduct an inquiry and determine the date of birth/age of the applicant/appellant Mobeen by summoning such witnesses and documents as may be necessary.

7. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to submit the report within three weeks from today."

4. Now, a report has been submitted by the Registrar

(Judicial) of the Court. It is based on the statement of the witnesses as

well as the scrutiny of the official records, including the school register

of the appellant/applicant Mobin and after conducting a detailed

inquiry, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court observed that the date of

birth recorded in the school record of the appellant/applicant Mobin

i.e. 22.05.1988 is found reliable in all probabilities. The Registrar

(Judicial) has taken into consideration the school leaving certificate,

the scholar register, the leaving certificate book and various other

documents. He also recorded the statements of the relatives, the

school authorities, etc.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that

in the instant case, the incident took place on 24.06.2003; the

judgment in the Sessions Trial was delivered on 15.02.2008; the

appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 20.03.2013 and the

SLP was finally dismissed on 20.08.2013. He submits that at the

relevant time, the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ("the JJ Act") were in existence and,

according to Section 7-A of the JJ Act, the issue of juvenility may be

raised at any stage before any court. He submits that since the

appellant/applicant Mobin was a juvenile in conflict with law on the

date of incident and he has been in custody for 13 years now, the law

commands that he should be released forthwith.

6. Learned State Counsel submits that the inquiry report

submitted by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court confirms that the

appellant/applicant Mobin was a juvenile in conflict with law on the

date of incident. He submits that the inquiry report also records the

date of birth of other siblings of the appellant/applicant Mobin. He

admits that the appellant/applicant is almost for 13 years in jail.

7. Section 7A of the JJ Act reads as follows:-

"7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court. - (1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be:

Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act.

(2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect."

8. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that

the claim of juvenility can be raised before any court at any stage, even

after final disposal of the case. In the instant case, it was done by the

appellant/applicant Mobin after his conviction, which has been

affirmed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court.

9. In the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State (NCT of

Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 803, once conviction was upheld by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the appellant therein had taken a plea of juvenility

before the trial court. The claim was denied because during trial, in

appeal and even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claim of

juvenility had already been taken, which has not been accepted by the

courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case did not hold that the

case of juvenility after final confirmation of the Supreme Court cannot

be taken before the trial court.

10. In the instant case, the claim of juvenility has been made

before this Court by the appellant/applicant Mobin from jail in the

year 2021.

11. This Court on 19.08.2025 had requested the Registrar

(Judicial) of the Court to conduct an inquiry. In fact, the report has

been submitted by the Registrar (Judicial), if affirmed by this Court, is

deemed to be an inquiry conducted by this Court.

12. In the case of Raju v. State of Haryana, (2019) 14 SCC

401, similarly the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the Registrar

(Judicial) to conduct an inquiry and once the report was received, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 18 and 19 as follows:-

"18. Therefore, it is evident that the only inquiry as stipulated under the 2000 Act and the 2007 Rules was conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) upon the directions of this Court, after the Court was satisfied upon going through the school certificates adduced by the appellant that the certificates in question prima facie entitled him to claim the conduct of such an inquiry. In such a situation, the question regarding whether precedence may be given to the inquiry of a Registrar (Judicial) of this Court over the opinion of the High Court regarding the age of an accused can be restated as whether such inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) upon the direction of this Court, if thereafter affirmed by this Court, would amount to an inquiry conducted by this Court itself. If this be the case, the findings of such inquiry would prevail over the view taken by the High Court, as is evident from the preceding discussion.

19. We are of the opinion that the above question must be answered in the affirmative. This Court, on previous occasions as well, has adopted the practice of directing the Registrar (Judicial) to conduct the inquiry in terms of Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules on behalf of this Court, and accepted the findings made therein [see Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 5 SCC 344 :

(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1274] ]. Seeing that the Registrar (Judicial) is a District Judge serving on deputation at the Supreme Court, recourse to his or her assistance in the form of collecting evidence and arriving at a finding regarding the claim of juvenility of the person concerned may be undertaken by this Court in order to save its judicial time.

However, it must be stressed that the findings in an inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) would not per se prevail upon a contrary view taken by the High Court. Only after this Court applies its judicial mind to such report with due regard to the confines of the procedure stipulated in Section 7-A of the 2000 Act and Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, and only if it thereafter confirms the findings in such report would the

same prevail upon a contrary view taken by the High Court which is not based upon any such inquiry."

13. In the instant case, the Registrar (Judicial) has

extensively inquired about the date of birth of the appellant/applicant

Mobin based on the statements of the relatives, teachers, school

authorities and after perusal of the documents, including the school

records. There has been no objection by either side to the inquiry

report. Therefore, we accept the report submitted by the Registrar

(Judicial) of this Court. We do not have any doubt that the inquiry

conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) amounts to an inquiry conducted

by this Court itself and it is a conclusive proof of the age of the

appellant/applicant under the provisions of the JJ Act. Accordingly,

the Court records that the date of birth of the appellant/applicant

Mobin is 22.05.1988 and on the date of incident i.e. 24.06.2003, he

was definitely a juvenile in conflict with law.

14. If a juvenile in conflict has been convicted with other

accused and the situation arises, as arisen like the instant one, what

would be the option before the Court?

15. In the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

and othrs, (2023) 15 SCC 683, the appellant in that case was held to

be juvenile by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That appellant had

undergone sentences along with other co-accused. In those facts and

circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court although upheld the

conviction, but quashed the sentences and having considered the

period of custody, which the appellant in that case had undergone, he

was released. In para 43, 44 and 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed as follows:-

"43. Consequently, we accept the report of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki dated 28-9-2022 and declare that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the commission of crime i.e. on 1-12-1995.

44. The other two co-accused i.e. Gaya Prasad Mishra and Gulab Chandra have been convicted and sentenced inter alia to life imprisonment. Although both of them have been prematurely released by the State Government under its remission policy, yet the fact remains that they were convicted (along with the appellant), for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 by the trial court in trial as well as by the High Court in appeal after examining the entire evidence in detail. The role assigned to the present appellant is no different than the role assigned to the other two accused who were convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34IPC. It is exactly the same role and clearly Section 34 of the Penal Code is also attracted. We have already declared the appellant as a juvenile, but there is also an order of conviction against the appellant, which is based on the evidence placed by the prosecution against the other two accused and the present appellant, which is common. It is not possible therefore to take a different view for the present appellant than what has been taken by the trial court and the appellate court against the other two accused regarding their conviction. Therefore, we sustain the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 307IPC read with Section 34IPC, but all the sentences which have been awarded to him are hereby quashed as such sentences cannot be given to a juvenile, in view of Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

45. The appeal is partly allowed on the question of juvenility as indicated hereinabove, and the order [Gaya Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 7473] of the High Court will stand modified to this extent. The appellant is presently in jail. He should be around 43 years of age as of now. Considering all the relevant aspects including the fact that the appellant has already been declared a juvenile by this Court and in view of Sections 15 and 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, since the maximum period for which a juvenile can be detained is three years and the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for 4½ years, we hereby order that the appellant be released forthwith, unless he is required in some other crime."

16. In the instant case, there were three convicts, including

the appellant. They all have been convicted under Sections 302 and

393 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of

Rs. 15,000/- each under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment

for a period of five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 393

IPC. The role assigned to the appellant/applicant and the co-convicts

is not dissimilar.

17. Therefore, this Court has no option but to sustain the

conviction of the appellant/applicant Mobin under Section 302 and

393 IPC. But, all the sentences, which have been awarded to him are

to be quashed because as such those sentences cannot be given to a

juvenile in conflict with law in view of Section 15 of the JJ Act.

18. Accordingly, we sustain the conviction of the

appellant/applicant Mobin under Section 302 and 393 IPC, but the

sentence imposed upon him is quashed.

19. The appellant/applicant is in jail. It is stated that he has

been in jail for more than 13 years. The appellant/applicant has

already been declared a juvenile in conflict with law and in view of

Sections 15 and 16 of the JJ Act, since maximum period for which a

juvenile can be detained is three years, we hereby order that the

appellant/applicant Mobin be released forthwith, if not wanted in any

other case.

 (Ashish Naithani, J.)                        (Ravindra Maithani, J)
   30.12.2025                                      30.12.2025
 Avneet/