Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Supreme Court held that a Children’s Court must pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act before proceeding; the conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted.
In the peculiar facts where the children had been with the appellants (who claim to be adoptive parents) for periods ranging from a few months to up to three years and had developed bonding with them, the Court directed return of custody to the respective adoptive parents as being in the best interest of the children, invoking principles in Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the Court's powers under Article 142; and imposed safeguards including quarterly welfare reports and possible home inspection by a Child Welfare Expert.
Source excerpt
The certificate of the first attended non-government school could not be treated as conclusive proof of Respondent No.2's date of birth because it was based on an oral representation by his father and was not a public document nor made by a public servant; in the face of conflicting statutory records (Family Register, Voters' List) and the Medical Board report indicating he was a major, the courts erred in declaring him a juvenile. Accordingly Respondent No.2 was held to have been a major on the date of the offence and the orders declaring juvenility were set aside.
Source excerpt
The trial was vitiated because the trial court failed to put the specific incriminating evidence to the appellants under Section 313 CrPC, thereby breaching the principle of audi alteram partem and causing serious prejudice; because remanding for re-recording of 313 statements was not feasible after long delay, appellants Nos.1 and 2 were given the benefit of doubt and their convictions and sentences were set aside; appellant No.3 was held to be a juvenile on the date of the offence following the Section 7A inquiry and his conviction and sentence were set aside on that ground.
Source excerpt
The Court found on the record (including school certificates, a transfer certificate, a Medical Age Certificate and admissions by the State in earlier proceedings) that the appellant was around 14 years old at the time of the offence; courts below failed to follow the mandatory procedural provisions for determining juvenility and thus the appellant retained a subsisting right under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act which could be recognised even after prior adjudications and executive clemency; accordingly the sentence beyond the statutory upper limit was set aside, conviction was maintained and t…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the School Leaving Certificate should be accepted for determining the deceased's date of birth over the Aadhaar Card, affirmed the MACT's notional income of Rs.9000 and applied a multiplier of 14, enhanced the rate of interest to 8% from the date of filing, recalculated compensation and rounded the award to Rs.15,00,000 to be released to the claimants as directed by the MACT.
Source excerpt
Pursuant to the court-directed enquiry by the Sessions Judge which examined the applicant, his mother and the headmaster and considered documentary evidence, the applicant's date of birth was proved to be 04.10.1984 making him 17 years, 3 months and 13 days on the date of the offence (17.01.2002); applying Section 94 JJ Act and relevant precedents that juvenility claims can be entertained even after final conviction, the conviction recorded against the applicant was set aside and he was acquitted.
Source excerpt
The evidence established that the accused (about 25 years old) repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault on a 14‑year‑old victim, resulting in pregnancy; under Section 375 IPC (sixthly) and Section 6 POCSO (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Section 376(2)(n)/(3) IPC the offences were made out and consent/characterisation as a 'romantic relationship' was irrelevant; the High Court erred in exercising plenary powers to quash convictions for such serious offences and therefore the Special Court's convictions under s.6 POCSO and s.376(2)(n)/(3) IPC are restored while acquittals und…
Source excerpt
The three-month period in section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for completion of preliminary assessment under section 15 is directory, not mandatory; the period can be extended (for reasons recorded in writing) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate; 'Children's Court' and 'Court of Sessions' are to be read interchangeably (Children's Court primarily); an appeal under section 101(2) should be filed within 30 days (with condonation for sufficient cause); the Principal Magistrate's order of 05.04.2022 was final under s.7(4)…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that a plea of juvenility can be raised for the first time in appeal and, because the trial court and High Court did not conduct a proper inquiry though the plea was raised at the earliest opportunity, remand for a thorough inquiry under the JJ Act, 2015 and applicable rules was necessary; if documents are inconclusive the trial court may as last resort order ossification testing; the inquiry must be completed within 12 weeks and the report furnished to this Court.
Source excerpt
Explore more
