RUBY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant and one Jai Ram have been convicted by the learned Trial Court for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC vide impugned judgment dated October 26, 2013 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ - vide order dated October 30, 2013.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed bail application being Crl.M.B.No.259/2014 seeking suspension of sentence on the ground that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of commission of the alleged offence. Along with the application the appellant has placed on record the birth certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi wherein the date of birth of the appellant was noted as August 04, 1993. The said date of birth was registered with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on December 28, 1993. This date of birth unequivocally proves that the appellant was less than 18 years of age at the time of alleged offence which took place on September 18, 2010. It is trite law that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and even after the proceedings have culminated till the Supreme Court.

(3.) THIS plea of juvenility was raised by the appellant during the course of trial as well and the Juvenile Justice Board vide its order dated May 14, 2012 held that the appellant's date of birth as per the certificate issued by the school was August 04, 1992 and thus she was more than 18 years of age on the date of commission of alleged offence i.e. September 18, 2010. The appellant was held to be not a juvenile which finding was challenged by the appellant before this Court in Crl.Revision Petition No.587/2012. This Court also vide its decision dated January 14, 2013 concurred with the Juvenile Justice Board. However, at the stage of inquiry conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board and the revision petition before this Court, the appellant had not produced her date of birth certificate from the municipal records which have now been produced. We would like to note that the father of the appellant has passed away and the allegations against the appellant are that in connivance with Jai Ram the appellant committed the murder of her mother Ishwanti. Thus with no parents to look after, the appellant was certainly prejudiced and could not have produced all the records during the inquiry and had thus sought ossification test which was declined both by the Juvenile Justice Board and this Court.