LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Raju v. The State of Haryana

Criminal Appeal · 2019 INSC 253Decided 22 Feb 2019
Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2014
Justice N.V. Ramana · Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar · Justice Indira Banerjee

Background

The appellant, along with two others, was convicted for gang-raping a 15-year-old girl in 2000 and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2)(g) IPC; the conviction was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Years later, the appellant claimed before the Supreme Court that he had been a juvenile (under 18) at the time of the offence and was therefore entitled to be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, rather than being sentenced as an adult. The Court directed an inquiry into his actual age, including examination of school records.

Decision Breakdown

Based on a school certificate showing the appellant's date of birth, the Court concluded he was approximately 16 years and 2 months old at the time of the offence in 2000, making him a "juvenile" under the 2000 Act. Since this inquiry was conducted on the Court's own direction, it was treated as conclusive proof of age under the applicable rules. Because the appellant qualified as a juvenile, the Court held that the maximum punishment permissible for him was 3 years in a special home, and since he had already spent about 6 years in prison, far exceeding this cap, his conviction and sentence as an adult were set aside and all proceedings against him were terminated, with his bail bonds discharged.

Lesson Learnt

A person's actual age at the time of an offence, not just the age recorded at some earlier stage of the case, determines whether they are tried as a juvenile, and courts can revisit this question even after conviction if credible documentary evidence surfaces; if genuinely a juvenile, an adult sentence cannot stand even after a final appellate conviction.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case