Anas v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

“ 3 9 .1 . A claim of j uvenilit y m ay be raised at any st age even aft er t he final disposal of t he case. I t m ay be raised for t he first t im e before t his Court as well aft er t he final disposal of t he case. The delay in raising t he claim of j uvenilit y cannot be a ground for rej ect ion of such claim . The claim of j uvenilit y can be raised in appeal even if not pressed before t he t rial court and can be raised for t he first t im e before t his Court t hough not pressed before t he t rial court and in t he appeal court . 3 9 .5 . The court where t he plea of j uvenilit y is raised for t he first t im e should always be guided by t he obj ect ives of t he 2000 Act and be alive t o t he posit ion t hat t he beneficent and salut ary provisions cont ained in t he 2000 Act are not defeat ed by t he hypert echnical approach and t he persons who are ent it led t o get benefit s of t he 2000 Act get such benefit s. 4 The court s should not be unnecessarily influenced by any general im pression t hat in schools t he parent s/ guardians underst at e t he age of t heir wards by one or t wo years for fut ure benefit s or t hat age det erm inat ion by m edical exam inat ion is not very precise. The m at t er should be considered prim a facie on t he probabilit y.” preponderance t ouchst one

10. I n t he case of “ Thirum oort hy Vs. St at e, represent ed by t he I nspect or of Police” , report ed in 2024 SCC On Line SC 375, Hon’ble Suprem e Court , while dealing wit h t he ident ical issue, has held t hat ent ire proceedings t aken against t he j uvenile right from t he st age of invest igat ion and t he com plet ion of t rial would st and vit iat ed, as having been undert aken in gross violat ion of t he m andat ory requirem ent s of t he Juvenile Just ice Act . The Court furt her observed not t o dwell it self int o t he m erit s of t he m at t er or t o re- appreciat e t he evidence available on record for finding out , whet her t he prosecut ion has been able t o prove t he guilt of t he appellant by reliable circum st ant ial evidence.

11. Thus, in view of t he law laid down by Hon’ble Suprem e Court , t his Court has no hesit at ion quashing t he sent ence awarded t o t he accused/ appellant .

12. Accordingly, t he Appeal preferred by t he accused/ appellant is allowed. The sent ence awarded t o t he accused/ appellant is hereby quashed. The accused/ appellant - Anas is acquit t ed of charge of offences punishable under Sect ions 363, 376( 2) ( n) of I .P.C. and Sect ion 6 of POCSO Act . He is in j ail. Let a 5 copy of t his j udgm ent be sent t o t he Superint endent of t he Jail concerned, who m ay set t he appellant at libert y fort hwit h, if he is not required in any ot her case.

13. Let a copy of t his j udgm ent along wit h t he record of t he t rial Court be sent back t o t he t rial Court . ( G. N A REN D A R, C.J.) ( A LOK M A H RA , J.) Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445 e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5 109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL 6