The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has upheld a murder conviction recorded in 2002 but remitted the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for sentencing, after finding that the convict was 17 years old on the date of the crime in 1999.
A Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava partly allowed the criminal appeal to the extent of sentence, holding that a juvenile found guilty cannot go unpunished, but the punishment must be decided by the Board.
Background
The appeal challenged a February 4, 2002 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. IV, Sultanpur, which convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000, with one year of additional rigorous imprisonment in default.
According to the prosecution, the deceased, Ajay Kumar Singh, a 22-year-old B.A. Part-III student, left home for college on February 2, 1999. His mother later said she had seen him going with the appellant and a co-accused that afternoon. His body was found the next morning near a canal in village Narsinghpur, within Police Station Baldirai.
The post-mortem recorded 44 ante-mortem incised wounds, including defensive wounds on both hands. An iron gandasa and a blood-stained sweater were recovered at the appellant’s pointing out, and the FSL report confirmed human blood on the clothing and disintegrated blood on the gandasa. The trial court acquitted the co-accused, giving him the benefit of doubt, but convicted the appellant.
Juvenility Claim in Appeal
While the appeal was pending, an application was filed seeking to declare the appellant a juvenile. Advocate S.C. Srivastava, appearing for the appellant, relied on the High School certificate and Class 8 transfer certificate showing his date of birth as November 15, 1981. He argued that under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the plea can be raised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case.
In its counter affidavit, the State said the documents had been verified and the date of birth found to be November 15, 1981. Referring to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the Bench noted that the provision gives primacy to the matriculation or school date of birth certificate. It held the appellant was 17 years, 2 months and 17 days old on the date of the incident and was therefore a juvenile.
Conviction Upheld
Srivastava told the Court that the appellant did not wish to challenge the conviction, but sought remission of the sentence to the Board in light of Mumtaz v. State of U.P., (2016) 11 SCC 786. The Additional Government Advocate did not dispute either the verified date of birth or the law laid down in Mumtaz.
Examining the circumstantial evidence, the Bench found the “last seen” witnesses reliable, observing: “Their testimony remained intact, and they are witnesses of sterling quality.” It also relied on the weapon recovery corroborated by an independent witness and the FSL findings, holding: “we find no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and conviction of the appellant-convict.”
Sentencing Left to the Board
Referring to Mumtaz, the Bench observed: “where a juvenile is found guilty of the offence alleged to have been committed, he simply cannot go unpunished, but what punishment should be awarded, must be left to the Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the Act.”
It noted that since the offence was committed when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force, only punishments or orders permissible under the law governing juveniles could be awarded.
Outcome
Upholding the conviction, the Court remitted the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned for orders on sentence. The appellant, already on bail, was directed to appear before the Board on October 27, 2026 with a certified copy of the judgment. The Board must pass orders within four weeks of receiving a certified copy.
Case Title: [Appellant’s name withheld] v. State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2002
Bench: Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Date: October 13, 2026
