SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Vs. RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-50
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
March 28,2014
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY
Appellant
VERSUS
Raju Thr. Member Juvenile Justice Board
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SALIL BALI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]MURTHY MATCH WORKS VS. ASSTT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
MITHU MITHU SURJIT SINGH SURJIT SINGH MUNAWAR HARUN SHAH KARNAIL SINGH ALIAS FAQIR SINGH JAVED AHMED ABDULHAMID PAWALE VS. STATE OF PUNJAB:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
ROOP CHAND ADLAKHA VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
KESHO RAM AND CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. D T C MAZDOOR CONGRESS ANB [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH KRIPA SHANKAR RAI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
DADU TULSIDAS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BASHEER ALIAS N P BASHEER VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
B MANMAD REDDY VS. CHANDRA PRAKASH REDDY [REFERRED TO]
TRANSPORT AND DOCK WORKERS UNION VS. MUMBAI PORT TRUST [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT RAMESH CHAKKARWAR VS. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RADHAKRISHNA KURUP VS. NADAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2016-3-61] [REFERRED TO]RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2016-12-115] [REFERRED TO]
BARIGELA HEMALATHA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
BUHARI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2024-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
CHAITHANYA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2023-4-98] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-161] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA TEXTILE AND GARMENTS DEALERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-11-135] [REFERRED TO]
P.HARSHA VARDHAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-73] [REFERRED TO]
B SAILESH SAXENA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
INDEPENDENT GAS BASED POWER PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P THROU PRIN SECY HIGHER EDUCATION LKO AND ORS VS. C/M KALAWATI DEVI SMARAK MAHAVIDYALAYA U P BADNAPUR BAHRAICH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-106] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR VISHWAKARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-116] [REFERRED TO]
PRANOY ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH DAS S/O LT. GHANA RAM DAS, R/O DWARAKA NAGAR, P.O. & P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI, DIST VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY [LAWS(GAU)-2016-7-72] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN KUMAR @ TUSHAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-77] [REFERRED TO]
NAVINBHAI BIJALBHAI DHARMANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-5-201] [REFERRED TO]
CHIDURALA SUDAKAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2018-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH VS. STATE OF U P AND ANR [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. ASHOK KUMAR GANDHI [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
T.H.D.C. INDIA LTD. VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2023-10-60] [REFERRED TO]
ARUP BHUYAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(SC)-2023-3-107] [REFERRED TO]
M. PADMAPRIYA AND ORS. VS. THE CHAIRMAN LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-12-146] [REFERRED TO]
JAGADISH CHANDRA BHUNIA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-8-163] [REFERRED TO]
FAIZAL HASAMALI MIRZA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
SHILPA MITTAL VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2020-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
ACHAL INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2019-3-141] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2019-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
WAHENGBAM OPENDRO SINGH AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
AMAN @ FAUZI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-111] [REFERRED TO]
CHHATTISGARH RAJYA GRAMIN BANK VS. NITESH SHARMA [LAWS(CHH)-2023-6-75] [REFERRED TO]
KOLASANI SAI YASHWANTH REDDY VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-103] [REFERRED TO]
ANSARI FARAHANA ABDUL RAUF VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
HEM SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-5-150] [REFERRED TO]
MD SAMEER RAO VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-5-123] [REFERRED TO]
JAGADISH CHANDRA BHUNIA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PRAKASH PAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-89] [REFERRED TO]
BOBBY (MINOR) VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-162] [REFERRED TO]
TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. P. RAMESH [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDHARTH JAIN VS. SHAHEED SUKHDEV COLLEGE OF BUSINESS [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. SONIA BHASKAR AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP NARAIN NEGI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2019-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY VS. AMRITPAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-215] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TELANGANA, REP., BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, TELANGANA SECRETARIAT VS. M/S. SRI VENKATESWARA INDUSTRIES, MAHABOBNAGAR, MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR B. DAMODAR REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL ASIF VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)On 16th December, 2012 a young lady (23 years in age) and her friend were returning home after watching a movie in a multiplex located in one of the glittering malls of Delhi. They boarded a bus to undertake a part of the journey back home. While the bus was moving, 5 persons brutally assaulted the young lady, sexually and physically, and also her friend. Both of them were thrown out of the bus. The young lady succumbed to her injuries on 29.12.2012.
(2.)Five persons were apprehended in connection with the crime. One of them, identified for the purpose of the present case as Raju, was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of the crime. Accordingly, in compliance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 ( as amended and hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') his case was referred for inquiry to the Juvenile Justice Board. The other accused were tried in a regular sessions court and have been found guilty, inter alia, of the offences under Section 376 (2)(g) and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the Penal Code"). They have been sentenced to death by the learned trial court. Their appeal against the aforesaid conviction and the sentence imposed has since been dismissed and the death penalty has been confirmed by the High Court of Delhi.
(3.)Before the Juvenile Justice Board to whom the case of Raju was referred for inquiry, the petitioners had filed applications for their impleadment to enable them to 'prosecute' the juvenile alongside the public prosecutor. The petitioners also claimed that, on a proper interpretation of the Act, the juvenile was not entitled to the benefits under the Act but was liable to be tried under the penal law of the land in a regular criminal court alongwith the other accused.
(2.)Five persons were apprehended in connection with the crime. One of them, identified for the purpose of the present case as Raju, was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of the crime. Accordingly, in compliance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 ( as amended and hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') his case was referred for inquiry to the Juvenile Justice Board. The other accused were tried in a regular sessions court and have been found guilty, inter alia, of the offences under Section 376 (2)(g) and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the Penal Code"). They have been sentenced to death by the learned trial court. Their appeal against the aforesaid conviction and the sentence imposed has since been dismissed and the death penalty has been confirmed by the High Court of Delhi.
(3.)Before the Juvenile Justice Board to whom the case of Raju was referred for inquiry, the petitioners had filed applications for their impleadment to enable them to 'prosecute' the juvenile alongside the public prosecutor. The petitioners also claimed that, on a proper interpretation of the Act, the juvenile was not entitled to the benefits under the Act but was liable to be tried under the penal law of the land in a regular criminal court alongwith the other accused.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.