Reference Petition - Whether, claim of juvenility be recognised and sent for determination when it was raised for first time in Appeal or before this Court or raised in trial and appeal but not pressed and then pressed for first time before this C..

Reference Petition - Whether, claim of juvenility be recognised and sent for determination when it was raised for first time in Appeal or before this Court or raised in trial and appeal but not pressed and then pressed for first time before this Court or even raised for first time after final disposal of case - Held, provision of Section 7A of 2000 Act cleared that claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after final disposal of case and delay in raising claim of juvenility cannot be ground for rejection of such claim - Claim of juvenility would be raised in Appeal even if not pressed before trial court and would be raised for first time before this Court though not pressed before trial court and in Appeal Court - For making claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, Claimant must produce some material which would prima facie satisfied Court that inquiry into claim of juvenility was necessary - Initial burden had to be discharged by person who claims juvenility - If such documents prima facie inspire confidence of Court, Court would act upon such documents for purposes of Section 7A and order enquiry for determination of age of delinquent - Court where plea of juvenility was raised for first time should always be guided by objectives of Act and be alive to position that beneficent and salutary provisions contained in Act were not defeated by hyper-technical approach and persons who were entitled to get benefits of Act - Reference Petition disposed of.T.S. Thakur, J.Criminal - Recognisation of claim of juvenility - Whether, misfortune of Accused never going to school be followed or compounded by denial of benefit that legislation provided in such emphatic terms, as to permit enquiry even after last Court had disposed of Appeal and upheld his conviction - Held, if one were to adopt wooden approach, one could say nothing short of certificate, whether from school or municipal authority would satisfy court's conscience, before directing an enquiry, then directing enquiry was not same thing as declaring Accused to be juvenile - Standard of proof required was different for both - In former, Court simply recorded prima facie conclusion - In latter Court made declaration on evidence, that it scrutinised and accepted only if it was worthy of such acceptance - Approach at stage of directing enquiry had of necessity to be more liberal, lest, there was avoidable miscarriage of justice - Suffice it to say that while affidavits would not be generally accepted as good enough basis for directing enquiry, that they were not so accepted was not rule of law but rule of prudence - Therefore Court would in each case weigh relevant factors, insist upon filing of better affidavits if need so arises, and even direct, any additional information considered relevant including information regarding age of parents, age of siblings and like, to be furnished before it decided on case to case basis - Reference Petition disposed of.Ratio Decidendi "Claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after final disposal of case and delay in raising claim of juvenility cannot be ground for rejection of such claim

Appeal against conviction - Offences committed under Section 302 of the IShow

Appeal against conviction - Offences committed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 - Appellant, submitted that the case on hand was not the one which falls in the category of "rarest of rare" warranting capital punishment and further there was no intention to kill - Whether the present case would fall under the category of "rarest of rare", warranting the death sentence - Held, even if the crime test and criminal test have been fully satisfied, to award the death sentence, the prosecution has to satisfy the R-R Test - One of the factors which weighed with the trial court as well as the High Court to award death sentence to the accused was his criminal antecedents - One of the factors which weighed with the High Court to affirm the death sentence was that the accused was charge-sheeted for commissioning of 24 criminal cases, out of which three were under Section 302 IPC and two were under Section 307 IPC, consequently, the Court held that there was no probability that the accused would not commit the act of violence in future and his presence would be a continuing threat to the society - No materials were produced to show that the accused stood convicted in any of those cases - Accused was only charge-sheeted and not convicted, hence, that factor was not a relevant factor to be taken note of while applying the R-R test so as to award capital punishment - Accused in the present case had the full knowledge i.e., if he fires the shot on the temporal area, that is between the forehead and the ear, it would result in death of the child of one year who was in the arms of PW1 - Appellant had taken out the pistol and fired at the right temporal area of the child, as retaliation of not meeting with his demand and there was nothing to show that, at the time of the incident, he was under the influence of liquor - Consequently, while conviction was affirmed it was held that the present was not a rarest of rare case, warranting capital punishment - Death sentence as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court was set aside and conviction was converted into imprisonment for life

Desposition: Disposed off