Surendra Singh and Another vs Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi and Another

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists. In compliance of the earlier order, he has filed an application supported by an affidavit annexing the relevant certificates of both the revisionists. It has been prayed in the application that since the date of birth Surendra Singh (revisionist No. 1) is 10.05.1978 and Keshary Kant (revisionist No. 2) is 15.08.1979, on the date of incident i.e. on 23.02.1994, both the accused persons were below 16 years and covered under Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

It has been a settled position of law, supported by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, that claim of juvenility can be raised before any court, at any stage, as provided u/s 7A of the Act. Section 7A(2) of the Act provides that 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 the court shall be deemed to have No. effect.

So as per the meaning envisaged by the provision stated above, the sentence of conviction passed against both the revisionists will be deemed to have No. effect. The matter is remitted back to the Juvenile Justice Board, District Uttarkashi to take such evidence, as it deems necessary to determine the question of juvenility of the revisionists on the date of incident and then pass appropriate orders, according to law, afresh.

Accordingly, the Revision and Misc. Application No. 1022 of 2011 are disposed of.