NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("2015 Act") requesting this Court to hold that the applicant, who is a convict for committing offences under Ss. 302, 342, 397, 449 read with 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("1860 Code") was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. Simultaneous prayer of the applicant is for his release from custody on the ground of having served more than the maximum punishment permissible under the Act. The applicant has been sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by a judgment and order dtd. 19/2/1998 and 23/2/1998 respectively. This application has been taken out in connection with a petition for review of the order by which his conviction and sentence was sustained by this Court after confirmation by the High Court. The review petition of the applicant was also dismissed on 24/11/2000. The applicant, along with two other offenders (Jitu and Raju) were tried for commission of offences under the aforesaid provisions of the 1860 Code. The applicant had not raised the plea of juvenility at the trial or the appellate stage. In the Trial Court, said Raju had turned approver and was tendered pardon. Both the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were confirmed by the High Court on 22/7/1999 in the appeal of the applicant as also in the confirmation proceeding. The appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of death sentence made by the applicant was dismissed by this Court on 5/9/2000. The offence of the applicant is no doubt, gruesome in nature. On 26/8/1994, as per the prosecution case sustained by all the judicial fora including this Court, the applicant alongwith the two other accomplices had committed murder of five women, (one of whom was pregnant) and two children. The offence took place at Pune in the State of Maharashtra. The applicant was arrested on 5/9/1994 from his home village and is in detention for more than 28 years.

(2.) Though the offence was committed at Pune, the applicant claims to hail from Jalabsar, in Shri Dungargarh tehsil, at present in Bikaner district, Rajasthan. It is from there he was arrested. He was tried as Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary. His plea before us is that his actual name is Niranaram. In the Inquiry Report, which we shall deal with later in this judgment, there is observation to the effect that people in Pune, Maharashtra might find it difficult to pronounce Niranaram and there is possibility of pronunciation mistake to call "Niranaram" as "Narayan" in Pune. The said tehsil was earlier in the district of Churu but in the year 2001, it came within the Bikaner district. Date of occurrence of the offence is 26/8/1994 and the chargesheet submitted against the applicant showed his age to be about 20 years at the time of commission of the offence. The applicants claim of juvenility is primarily based on a "certificate" of date of birth issued on 30/1/2019, in the name of Niranaram, son of Chetanram. The said certificate has been issued by the Pradhanacharya (Headmaster), Rajakiya Adarsh Uccha Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jalabsar, Shri Dungargarh. In the said document, it is recorded that Niranaram was born on 1/2/1982. In a "transfer certificate" by the same authority issued on 15/8/2001, it is reflected that he had joined the school in Class First on 1/4/1986 vide admission number 568 and left from Class Third (Passed) on 15/5/1989.

(3.) In the chargesheet, the accused Narayans age was shown to be 20 years. We find from the judgment of the High Court that the said age (20-22 years) was given on behalf of the applicant only at the time of hearing. The High Court had tangentially referred to the question of age of the applicant in its judgment in the appeal and death reference. At that time, however, the plea of juvenility was not there. It was observed in the High Courts judgment that the age of the accused at the time of occurrence ought to be borne in mind while considering the question of awarding the sentence.