<p>New Delhi The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> has ordered an inquiry into the claim of a man who stated that he was a minor at the time of murder in 1983 in which he stood convicted by the apex court in 2023.</p><p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted as per proviso to Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the plea of juvenility may be raised before any court and it would be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case.</p><p>A Meerut court had in 1989 convicted the petitioner, along with two others, in a case of murder on February 7, 1983.</p><p>His appeal was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court in 2022 and the Supreme Court in 2023.</p><p>By a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the man claimed he was born on February 1, 1968. </p><p>In this respect, he relied upon a copy of the scholar register cum transfer certificate issued by the school on February 12, 1983 and the birth certificate of April 19, 2024 issued by the Gram Panchayat, Makarandpur Ogti. </p><p>He urged the court to extend the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.</p><p>The state counsel opposed the plea contending it has been raised belatedly, nearly 42 years of the incident. </p>.Delhi court convicts juvenile of murder in 2017 shooting near Rohini court.<p>Referring to Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs State of Bihar (2024), the bench said, this court examined the proviso to Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, and held that the plea of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case. </p><p>In the case of Vinod Katara Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), this court expanded the scope of JJ Act and held that whenever a claim of juvenility is raised, an inquiry has to be made, and such inquiry would take place by receiving evidence which would be necessary but not by an affidavit so as to determine the age of such person, the bench said.</p><p>"In view the precedents and the fact that the petitioner has placed on record documents prima facie indicating his date of birth which, when considered in the context of the date of commission of the offence, would bring him within the definition of a juvenile or a child in conflict with law," the bench said.</p><p>The court thus directed the Sessions Judge, Meerut, to either by himself or through any other Additional Sessions Judge, get conducted an inquiry into the date of birth of the petitioner in accordance with the procedure provided under the JJ Act. </p><p>It sought the report in a sealed cover within a period of three months and fixed the matter for consideration on May 26, 2026.</p>
<p>New Delhi The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> has ordered an inquiry into the claim of a man who stated that he was a minor at the time of murder in 1983 in which he stood convicted by the apex court in 2023.</p><p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted as per proviso to Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the plea of juvenility may be raised before any court and it would be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case.</p><p>A Meerut court had in 1989 convicted the petitioner, along with two others, in a case of murder on February 7, 1983.</p><p>His appeal was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court in 2022 and the Supreme Court in 2023.</p><p>By a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the man claimed he was born on February 1, 1968. </p><p>In this respect, he relied upon a copy of the scholar register cum transfer certificate issued by the school on February 12, 1983 and the birth certificate of April 19, 2024 issued by the Gram Panchayat, Makarandpur Ogti. </p><p>He urged the court to extend the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.</p><p>The state counsel opposed the plea contending it has been raised belatedly, nearly 42 years of the incident. </p>.Delhi court convicts juvenile of murder in 2017 shooting near Rohini court.<p>Referring to Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs State of Bihar (2024), the bench said, this court examined the proviso to Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, and held that the plea of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case. </p><p>In the case of Vinod Katara Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), this court expanded the scope of JJ Act and held that whenever a claim of juvenility is raised, an inquiry has to be made, and such inquiry would take place by receiving evidence which would be necessary but not by an affidavit so as to determine the age of such person, the bench said.</p><p>"In view the precedents and the fact that the petitioner has placed on record documents prima facie indicating his date of birth which, when considered in the context of the date of commission of the offence, would bring him within the definition of a juvenile or a child in conflict with law," the bench said.</p><p>The court thus directed the Sessions Judge, Meerut, to either by himself or through any other Additional Sessions Judge, get conducted an inquiry into the date of birth of the petitioner in accordance with the procedure provided under the JJ Act. </p><p>It sought the report in a sealed cover within a period of three months and fixed the matter for consideration on May 26, 2026.</p>
