STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 411, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Case Allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 411 : 2024 INSC 747
State of Madhya Pradesh 
v. 
Ramji Lal Sharma & Another
(Miscellaneous Application No. 261 of 2024 in  
Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2022)
23 September 2024
[B.V. Nagarathna* and  
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the application filed by applicant seeking his 
release from further jail sentence, on the ground of his juvenility 
on the date of the offence and has already undergone a sentence 
of more than four years.
Headnotes†
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 
2015 – s.94 – Presumption and determination of age – As 
regards incident of 17.01.2002, the applicant convicted by 
the Special Sessions Judge, however, acquitted by the High 
Court – Subsequently, this Court convicted the applicant – 
Thereafter the applicant underwent sentence of four years 
and three months in all – Subsequently, miscellaneous 
application filed by the applicant seeking his release from 
further jail sentence, on the ground of his juvenility on the 
date of the offence and has already undergone a sentence 
of more than four years:
Held: Application for claiming juvenility may be made even after 
the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been 
granted against a person which has attained finality – On basis 
of the report submitted by the Sessions Judge, pursuant to the 
directions of this Court, it is found that the applicant was below 
eighteen years of age as on the date of the
incident – Date of 
birth of the applicant has been proved to be 04.10.1984 – Thus, 
the claim of juvenility made by the applicant, upheld – Conviction 
as recorded against him set aside and he is acquitted – As he is 
on interim bail, his bail-bonds stand cancelled. [Para 11] 
* Author
412
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal [2012] 9 SCR 244 : (2012) 
10 SCC 489; Pramila v. State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal 
No. 64/2012, dated 17.01.2004 – referred to.
List of Acts
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Penal 
Code, 1860; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention 
of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
List of Keywords
Release from further jail sentence; Juvenility; Date of birth. 
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application 
No. 261 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2022
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2022 of the Supreme 
Court of India in Crl.A. No. 293 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Amit Sharma, A.A.G., Yashraj Singh Bundela, Ramesh Thakur, 
Chanakya Baruah, Ms. Saloni, Rohan Singla, Advs. for the Petitioner.
M/s. Prashant Shukla Law Chambers, Prashant Shukla, Mrs. 
Anushree Shukla, Prabhat Chowdhary, Kartik Kumar, Ms. Ritika Raj, 
Akshat Mudgil, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Nagarathna, J.
The Applicant/Respondent No. 2 herein, i.e., Brijnandan @ Brajesh 
Sharma has filed the present Miscellaneous Application in the 
disposed of Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2002. seeking his release 
from further jail sentence, on the ground of his juvenility on the date 
of the offence, i.e., on 17.01.2002.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
413
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramji Lal Sharma & Another
2.	
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Respondents in 
Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2022 were two of the four accused in 
the crime registered pursuant to FIR No.8/2002 dated 17.01.2002 
at Police Station AJK Bhind, District Bhinda, Madhya Pradesh, for 
the offences committed under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”), read with Section 3(2)(v) 
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “SC/ST Act”). Pursuant to the trial in 
Special Case No. 74 of 2002 before the Ld. Special Judge, Bhind, 
the Respondents were convicted for the offences punishable under 
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were awarded life 
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- vide judgment dated 24.02.2006. 
3.	
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the Respondents 
filed Criminal Appeal No.339 of 2006 before the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh, Gwalior Bench. The High Court allowed the appeal preferred 
by the Respondents vide judgment dated 13.12.2018 and thereby 
set aside the conviction of the Respondents. 
4.	
Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the High 
Court, the State preferred this Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2022 
arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.1926 of 2022 before this Court. 
This Court, vide judgment dated 09.03.2022, allowed the appeal filed 
by the State and,
resultantly, the Respondents were convicted and 
the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was restored. Hence, the 
Respondents were directed to undergo the remaining sentence as 
per the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court. 
It is in these circumstances that the applicant/respondent No.2 has 
preferred the instant application seeking his release from further 
jail sentence on the ground that he was a minor on the date of 
commission of the offence i.e. 17.01.2002 and has already undergone 
a sentence of more than four years. 
5.	
During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the applicant 
Brijnandan alias Brajesh Sharma submitted that although by the 
judgment of this Court the applicant herein was convicted and 
serving his sentence; thereafter, on becoming aware of the law the 
applicant has filed this application claiming juvenility as on the date 
of the incident, i.e. 17.01.2002. 
6.	
During the course of submissions, it was borne out that while the date 
of birth of the applicant as per the school record is 04.10.1984, it is
414
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
10.03.1984 as per the Aadhaar Card. We note that the date of the 
commission of offence was on 17.01.2002. It was therefore submit-
ted at the Bar that the applicant’s plea of juvenility be accepted as 
Applicant was a juvenile aged about 17 years and 3 months on the 
date of the commission of offence. 
7.	
Considering the aforesaid inconsistency, this Court, vide order dated 
16.05.2024, had directed the Sessions Court, District Bhind, Madhya 
Pradesh to conduct an enquiry with regard to the claim of juvenility 
made by the applicant herein and to submit a report to this Court 
in accordance with law. The said enquiry has been conducted and 
by report dated 16.07.2024, the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), 
Bhind, M.P. has held that the applicant’s date of birth is 04.10.1984 
and consequently on the date of the incident, i.e. on 17.01.2002, he 
was 17 years 3 months and 13 days old (though wrongly typed as 
17.03.2002 and 17 years 5 months and 13 days in the order dated 
16.07.2024). Therefore, the applicant being a juvenile on the date of 
the commission of the offence is entitled to the benefit of the provisions 
of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protocol of Children) Act, 2015 is the 
submission. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that having 
regard to the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has conducted 
a detailed enquiry by examining not only the applicant but also his 
mother and in-charge Head Teacher
Government Primary School, 
Deori, Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. 
Finally, it was contended that the said report, which is in favour of 
the applicant herein, may be considered and the benefit of juvenility 
be granted to the applicant herein. Consequently, the conviction as 
against the applicant herein may be set aside.
8.	
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State at the outset 
submitted that the plea of juvenility is highly belated inasmuch as 
the incident took place on 17.01.2002 but the applicant after being 
convicted by this Court has subsequently filed the application. The 
long delay in making the claim of juvenility must be accounted for 
at the first instance before considering other pleas made by the 
applicant. He also submitted that there is discrepancy in the name 
of the applicant in the special leave petition. The petition notes the 
applicant’s name as Brijnandan alias Brajesh Sharma son of Ramji 
Lal Sharma, whereas in the school documents it is noted as Brijesh 
Kumar and in the Aadhaar Card it is just Brijesh. Therefore, the 
miscellaneous application may be dismissed.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
415
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramji Lal Sharma & Another
9.	
By way of reply, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance 
on a judgment of this Court in Abuzar Hossain vs. State of West 
Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 to contend that the claim for juvenility 
may be made at any stage of the criminal proceedings and even 
after final conviction and sentence being imposed. Therefore, the 
said argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-State is 
without any substance. He further submitted that although the name 
of the applicant as stated by the informant and the prosecution may 
be slightly at variance with the name of the applicant in the school 
records as well as in the enquiry that has been conducted on the 
basis of the documents but the fact remains that the applicant is the 
son of Ramji Lal and there being no dispute about the same, a slight 
discrepency in the name would not negate his claim for juvenility.
He further submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court a 
comprehensive enquiry has been conducted. The applicant, his 
mother and the head master of the school where the applicant 
was studying have all been examined. There has been no cross 
examination of the said witnesses in the enquiry by the respondent-
State. Therefore, there can now be no objection raised by the State 
to the said report submitted by the learned Sessions Judge. In the 
circumstances, he contended that the report may be taken into 
consideration and
relief may be granted to the applicant herein.
10.	 We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar.
11.	 It is noted that in respect of the incident dated 17.01.2002, the 
applicant was convicted on 24.02.2006 by the Special Sessions 
Judge, Bhind. Thereafter, he was acquitted by the High Court vide 
judgment dated 13.12.2018. Subsequently, in the appeal filed by the 
respondent-State, this Court by judgment dated 09.03.2022, convicted 
the applicant. It is thereafter that the applicant has undergone 
sentence of four years and three months in all. Subsequently, this 
miscellaneous application was filed and this Court vide order dated 
16.05.2024 directed that the enquiry be conducted. Subsequently, 
the learned Sessions Judge has passed his order on 16.07.2024 
and has submitted his report to this Court. Pursuant to the order 
of this Court on 16.05.2024, the applicant has been released on 
interim bail. Therefore, on perusal of this report, we note that not 
only the applicant herein, but the mother as well as the Head 
Master of school have been examined as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
416
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
respectively and as many as five documents were also considered 
by the learned Sessions Judge. It is on consideration of the same 
and having regard to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and 
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 that the learned Sessions Judge 
found that the applicant was below eighteen years of age as on 
the date of the incident. Although the application has been filed 
subsequent to the conviction ordered by this Court, we have regard 
to the judgment of this Court as noted above and in judgment dated 
17.01.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.64/2012, titled as Pramila vs. State 
of Chhattisgarh, that an application for claiming juvenility may be 
made even after the judgment and order of conviction and sentence 
has been granted against a person which has attained finality. 
Bearing in mind the aforesaid judgments and the report submitted 
by the learned Sessions Judge, pursuant to the directions of this 
Court, we find that the date of birth of the applicant has been proved 
to be 04.10.1984. Consequently, the claim of juvenility made by 
the applicant, who was arrayed as accused no.3 is upheld and the 
conviction as recorded against him by this Court is set-aside and 
he stands acquitted. As he is on interim bail, his bail-bonds stand 
cancelled.
Consequently, the miscellaneous application is allowed in the 
aforesaid terms.
Result of the Case: Miscellaneous Application Allowed
†Headnotes prepared by:
Nidhi Jain