Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 02.04.2025 vs State Of Meghalaya on 2 April, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:260-DB
Serial No. 18
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.A. No. 55 of 2024
Date of Decision: 02.04.2025
Shri. Lovely Chyrmang
Aged about 25 years
S/o (L) Thawain Ryngkhlem,
R/o Myrjai, West Jaintia Hills District,
Meghalaya
.....Appellant
- Versus-
State of Meghalaya
Represented by the Public Prosecutor/
Special Public Prosecutor
...... Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Dey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T. Yangi. B, AAG with
Mr. E.R. Chyne, GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant who has
submitted that before proceeding with this appeal, the attention of this
1
2025:MLHC:260-DB
Court is drawn to the preliminary prayer of the appellant, inasmuch as the
plea of juvenility of the appellant is now raised before this forum.
2. The learned counsel has led this Court to page 227 of the paper-
book wherein is found annexed copy of the birth certificate of the
appellant, the date of birth indicated therein being 30.06.1999. Another
document enclosed at page 228 is the school certificate of the appellant
where the date of birth of the appellant is also given as 30.06.1999. It is
prayed that this issue may be decided at the outset. In support of his
submission, the learned counsel has cited the case of Abuzar Hossain alias
Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489, paras 39,
39.1, 39.2 and 39.3.
3. Ms. T. Yangi. B, learned AAG has also conceded that the plea of
juvenility can be taken at any stage of the proceedings before any court,
including this Court and therefore, no objection is raised if such issue is
made to be decided by the Trial Court.
4. We have considered the submission of the parties and have also
looked into the authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, the
same being reproduced herein below as:
“39. Now, we summarise the position which is as under:
39.1. A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after
the final disposal of the case. It may be raised for the first time
before this Court as well after the final disposal of the case. The
delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for
rejection of such claim. The claim of juvenility can be raised in
appeal even if not pressed before the trial court and can be raised
for the first time before this Court though not pressed before the
trial court and in the appeal court.
39.2. For making a claim with regard to juvenility after
conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may
prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into the claim of2
2025:MLHC:260-DBjuvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be discharged by the
person who claims juvenility.
39.3. As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the court
and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden cannot be
catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what weight should be
given to a specific piece of evidence which may be sufficient to
raise presumption of juvenility but the documents referred to in
Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima
facie satisfaction of the court about the age of the delinquent
necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The statement
recorded under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may
not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim
of juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of the
documents like the school leaving certificate or the voters’ list,
etc. obtained after conviction would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no hard-and-fast rule can be
prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected. In
Akbar Sheikh v. State of W.B., [(2009) 7 SCC 415] and Pawan v.
State of Uttaranchal, [(2009) 15 SCC 259] these documents were
not found prima facie credible while in Jitendra Singh v. State of
U.P., [(2010) 13 SCC 523] the documents viz. school leaving
certificate, marksheet and the medical report were treated
sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the
appellant’s age. If such documents prima facie inspire confidence
of the court, the court may act upon such documents for the
purposes of Section 7-A and order an enquiry for determination
of the age of the delinquent.”
5. It is also to be noted that this Court has dealt with a similar issue
in the case of Darius Marwein v. State of Meghalaya & anr. and in this
regard has passed an order dated 30.06.2022 in Crl.A. No. 17 of 2021. The
relevant paras 3 and 4 are cited herein below as:
“3. It is fairly submitted on behalf of the State that such plea can
be taken at any stage and the matter requires to be considered on
evidence. At the suggestion of the State, the matter is remanded
to the trial court only for the consideration of the issue as to
whether the appellant was or was not below the age of 18 as on
January 1, 2007, the date of the incident.
4. The trial court should make every endeavour to decide the issue
within three months of receipt of an authenticated copy of this3
2025:MLHC:260-DBorder. The parties should cooperate and not seek any unnecessary
adjournment before the trial court. In the event the issue is
answered in favour of the appellant herein, an appropriate order
should follow upon the impugned judgment and sentence being
set aside.”
6. In view of the above, we hereby disposed of this appeal without
going into the merits thereof with a direction that the issue of juvenility of
the appellant be looked into and decided by the concerned Trial Court and
an appropriate order be passed which may result in changing the character
of the impugned judgment and sentence under challenged herein.
7. Let the copy of this order along with the trial court records be
forwarded to the concerned court for due compliance.
8. Appeal disposed of, however without prejudice to the rights of
the respective parties to agitate the matter on merits in due course.
(B. Bhattacharjee) (W. Diengdoh)
Judge Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
TIPRILYNTI KHARKONGOR
Date: 2025.04.02 20:45:22 4
PDT
[ad_1]
Source link