The Supreme Court of India has directed a factual inquiry into a plea of juvenility raised by a life convict nearly 46 years after the commission of the offence. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, observed that the plea of juvenility can be recognized at any stage, even after the final disposal of a case.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Sunder @ Surendra, along with three co-accused, was tried by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 9, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 335 of 1983. On January 31, 1989, the trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The conviction was subsequently upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on September 30, 2022. A Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on October 6, 2023. The petitioner has now approached the apex court through a writ petition, raising the plea of juvenility for the first time.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner relied on a scholar register-cum-transfer certificate dated February 12, 1983, and a birth certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Makarandpur Ogti, dated April 19, 2024. Both documents record his date of birth as February 1, 1968. Since the crime occurred on February 7, 1983, the petitioner claimed he was approximately 15 years old at the time and sought benefits under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.
The State of Uttar Pradesh contested the claim, arguing that the plea was raised at a “highly belated stage” after the rejection of appeals and the SLP. The State further submitted:
“The very foundation of the petitioner’s claim of juvenility rests entirely upon appreciation, verification, and adjudication of these documentary records, which necessarily requires a factual inquiry and evidentiary examination… such an exercise may not be proper in the eye of the law under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 32.”
Court’s Analysis and Precedents
The Court referred to its previous ruling in Rahul Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar (2024), which examined the proviso to Section 9(2) of the JJ Act. The Court noted:
“The proviso to Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 clearly enumerates that plea of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case.”
The bench also cited Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), which held that whenever such a claim is raised, an inquiry must be conducted by receiving evidence rather than relying solely on affidavits to determine the person’s age.
The Decision
The Court found that the documents produced by the petitioner prima facie indicated that he might fall within the definition of a juvenile or a child in conflict with law at the time of the offence.
Consequently, the Court directed the Sessions Judge, Meerut, to conduct an inquiry into the petitioner’s date of birth. The Court ordered:
- The inquiry may be conducted by the Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge in accordance with the JJ Act.
- The petitioner, State, and complainant/victim side must be given the opportunity to lead evidence.
- The petitioner may be summoned from jail for the inquiry if required.
- The inquiry report must be submitted to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover within three months.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on May 26, 2026.
- Case Title: Sunder @ Surendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Case Number: Writ Petition (Crl.) No(S). 514 of 2025
