Supreme Court Orders Re-examination of Juvenility in Murder Conviction: Gaurav Kumar @ Monu vs. State of Haryana

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Gaurav Kumar @ Monu vs. State of Haryana, addressed a crucial issue regarding the determination of juvenility in a murder conviction. The case involved the appellant, who had been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The key question before the court was whether the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the crime.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an F.I.R. dated May 24, 2000, which was registered under Sections 323, 506, 148, 149, 170, 171, and 302 IPC against the appellant, Gaurav Kumar @ Monu, and others. The crime involved the fatal assault on Sher Singh, who succumbed to his injuries after giving a statement to the police.

Following a trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, convicted Gaurav Kumar and another accused, Hans Raj, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500. The conviction was challenged before the Punjab & Haryana High Court through Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2002.

Claim of Juvenility

One of the primary contentions raised in the High Court was that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offense. In response, the High Court ordered the Sessions Judge, Hisar, to conduct an inquiry to determine the appellant’s age at the time of the crime.

During the inquiry, both oral and documentary evidence were examined. The appellant submitted a certificate from St. Kabir School, Hisar, and a mark sheet from National Open School, New Delhi, both indicating his date of birth as August 17, 1982. However, the prosecution submitted an official Birth Certificate from the Registrar of Births and Deaths (Municipal Council, Haansi), which recorded his date of birth as August 17, 1981.

Based on this evidence, the District & Sessions Judge, Hisar, ruled that the appellant was over 18 years of age on the date of the offense and submitted a report to the High Court. This finding significantly impacted the appellant’s claim of juvenility.

Proceedings Before the High Court

After receiving the report from the Sessions Judge, the appellant filed multiple applications before the High Court under Section 391 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. to introduce additional documents, including a secondary school certificate, a migration certificate, and an identity card from the National Open School. These documents allegedly supported his claim of being under 18 at the time of the offense.

However, during the hearing on January 30, 2015, the appellant’s counsel withdrew the applications, leading the High Court to dismiss them as withdrawn. As a result, the appellant’s claim of juvenility was not considered further, and the appeal against conviction proceeded on other grounds.

Appeal Before the Supreme Court

The appellant subsequently challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that:

• Juvenility can be raised at any stage of proceedings, even after conviction.
• The High Court erred in relying on the Birth Certificate instead of the school records.
• As per Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, preference should be given to school certificates over birth certificates.

In support of his claims, the appellant relied on the Supreme Court rulings in Shah Nawaz vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) and Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain vs. State of West Bengal (2012). These judgments emphasized that in determining juvenility, school records should be preferred over birth certificates.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the case and noted:

1. Right to Raise Juvenility at Any Stage

The court reiterated that juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even after conviction and sentencing. This principle has been established in multiple previous rulings.

2. Application of Juvenile Justice Rules

The appellant’s claim was based on Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. However, the Supreme Court noted that these rules were not applicable to the present case because the incident occurred in May 2000, whereas the 2007 Rules were introduced later.

Instead, the relevant legal framework was the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001. Under Rule 22(5) of the 2001 Rules, preference was given to birth certificates over school records.

3. Inconsistency in Evidence

The Supreme Court acknowledged the inconsistency in the appellant’s documents and found that the Birth Certificate submitted by the State was more reliable than the school records.

Final Judgment

Despite finding no procedural errors in the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court decided that the claim of juvenility required further consideration. It set aside the January 30, 2015 order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh examination.

The High Court was directed to:

• Reconsider the issue of juvenility based on the evidence presented.
• Take into account the documents submitted by the appellant in his applications.
• Review the report of the Sessions Judge, Hisar, and assess its reliability.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Juvenility Claims Can Be Raised at Any Stage: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that juvenility can be claimed even after conviction.
• Legal Framework at the Time of Offense Matters: The court emphasized that the rules applicable at the time of the crime govern juvenility determinations.
• Preference Between Birth Certificates and School Records: The case clarified that under the 2001 Rules, birth certificates take precedence over school records.
• Re-examination of Juvenility: The Supreme Court provided a fair opportunity for the High Court to reconsider the appellant’s juvenility.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Gaurav Kumar @ Monu vs. State of Haryana is a landmark decision in the field of juvenile justice. By directing a re-examination of the appellant’s juvenility, the court ensured a fair assessment under the applicable legal framework. The judgment highlights the importance of correct legal interpretation and adherence to procedural fairness in criminal trials involving juvenility claims.

Petitioner Name: Gaurav Kumar @ Monu.
Respondent Name: State of Haryana.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Hisar, Haryana.
Judgment Date: 15-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Gaurav Kumar @ Monu vs State of Haryana Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Juvenile Justice
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category