SC sets aside jail term of man found juvenile in rape case, upholds conviction
A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said after the accused claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the crime, the apex court asked the district and sessions judge at Ajmer to conduct an inquiry into his claims.
The bench, upon examining the inquiry report, said the accused was aged 16-years-two-months-and-three days on the date of crime on November 17, 1988.
'The appellant was therefore a juvenile on the date of commission of the crime," the bench said.
It said authoritative judgments of the top court have categorically held that plea of juvenility could be raised before any court and has to be recognised at any stage, even after disposal of the case.
The bench said as the accused was then a juvenile, the provisions as contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 would apply.
'Consequently, the sentence as imposed by the trial court and upheld by the high court will have to be set aside, as the same cannot sustain. We order accordingly," the bench held.
While section 15 of the 2000 Act deals with order that may be passed regarding juvenile, Section 16 relates to order that may not be passed against juvenile.
The top court's verdict came on the accused's appeal against a July 2024 verdict of the Rajasthan High Court.
The high court had confirmed his conviction and five-year sentence awarded by a trial court in the case.
His counsel, in the apex court, highlighted the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's case and said the accused was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence.
The bench noted the survivor was firm in her cross-examination supported by the medical evidence.
Her testimony was found 'worthy of credence" requiring no corroboration that could form the sole basis for conviction.
'Prosecution's case is not founded solely on the testimony of the victim; rather, it is amply supported by the statements of other witnesses and corroborating medical evidence, all of which collectively establish the case of the prosecution," the top court said.
It said the findings recorded with regard to his conviction stood duly established beyond doubt. PTI ABA ABA AMK AMK
view comments
First Published:
July 23, 2025, 21:00 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
21 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
HC defers hearing on Majithia's plea in DA case to August 26
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday deferred the hearing on Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia's plea against his arrest and subsequent remand in a disproportionate assets case registered by the Punjab vigilance bureau. The next hearing has been scheduled for August 26. The Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday deferred the hearing on Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia's plea against his arrest and subsequent remand in a disproportionate assets case registered by the Punjab vigilance bureau. The next hearing has been scheduled for August 26. As the matter came up before the bench of justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, Majithia's counsel sought four weeks' time to file an amended petition. The court granted the request and adjourned the matter accordingly. Majithia had initially filed the petition on July 1, challenging his arrest and subsequent remand. On July 8, his lawyers sought time to amend the plea—a request repeated during Tuesday's hearing. Majithia was arrested by the vigilance bureau on June 25 in connection with a disproportionate assets case allegedly involving the laundering of ₹540 crore. On July 6, a Mohali court remanded him to judicial custody. In his petition, Majithia has termed the case as an act of 'political witch-hunting and vendetta', claiming it was a response to his criticism of the current government. This FIR against Majithia stems from an ongoing investigation being conducted by a Punjab Police special investigation team into the 2021 drug case. In 2021, Majithia was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The action was taken on the basis of a 2018 report of the anti-drug Special Task Force. Majithia spent more than five months in Patiala jail and walked out of prison in August 2022 after the Punjab and Haryana high court granted him bail.
News18
29 minutes ago
- News18
ED searches in Rs 500 cr Chhattisgarh medical supply scam case
Raipur, Jul 30 (PTI) The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday launched searches at multiple locations in Chhattisgarh as part of a money laundering investigation into an over Rs 500 crore worth medical supply 'scam", official sources said. Premises linked to some government officials, medical suppliers and agents apart from some 'middlemen" are being raided in Raipur, Durg and adjoining places, they said. The ED probe under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) stems from an Anti-Corruption Bureau/Economic Offences Wing (ACB/EOW) chargesheet filed in April against six persons for alleged irregularities in purchase of medical equipment and reagent chemicals in 2023 that caused a loss of Rs 550 crore to the state exchequer. The ACB/EOW, on January 22, lodged a case against officials of the state-run Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Ltd (CGMSCL) in Raipur and Directorate of Health Services department as well as four firms namely Mokshit Corporation (Durg), CB Corporation (Durg), Records and Medicare System HSIIDC (Panchkula, Haryana) and Shri Sharda Industries (Raipur), as well as others. It was alleged that the scam involves purchase of reagents and equipment without checking requirement/availability of these items in health centres. The CGMSCL has made purchases worth billions of rupees between January 2022 to October 31, 2023 in collusion with Mokshit Corporation and its shell company, the ACB/EOW had said. PTI NES DV DV view comments First Published: July 30, 2025, 10:45 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Bombay HC raps EOW for inacion, transfers builder fraud case to crime branch
MUMBAI : In a rare and significant move, the Bombay High Court transferred the builder fraud case-registered under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act-to the Mumbai Crime Branch, citing serious lapses in the investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). The move came after the victims, who had alleged a scam of over Rs 100 crore, filed a petition expressing loss of faith in EOW's probe. In its detailed order dated July 7, the court strongly criticised EOW DCP Sangramsinh Nishandar for failing to take concrete steps since taking over the case in March 2024. "Ex-facie we find that the concerned DCP has hardly taken any efforts in the investigation. An amount of approximately ₹100 crore was siphoned off by the accused and the DCP is unable to follow the money trail." The high court was particularly scathing about the freezing of bank accounts, noting that some had negligible balances of around ₹2,000 to ₹3,000, stating that none of the accused's personal accounts, vehicles, or immovable properties had been attached, barring one project site. 'Laxity and negligence' The affidavit submitted by Nishandar on July 15 drew further criticism, with the court calling his justifications "lame excuses." He claimed that an anticipatory bail order barred coercive action against the accused, which limited his investigation. However, the court rejected this reasoning, saying the order merely protected against arrest and did not restrict investigation. The court also pulled up Nishandar for blaming the Income Tax Department, BKC, for not providing property details linked to PAN numbers. Upon reviewing records, the court found that the EOW's letter merely asked for PAN details, and not property records. "A false blame is put on the Income Tax Department whereas the Senior Police Inspector himself has shown laxity and negligence," it stated. Another major lapse involved the failure to track property transactions. The court noted that a notice was sent on October 20, 2023, to the Joint Sub Registrar of Assurances, Andheri-IV and VI, regarding fresh registrations linked to the accused. Despite subsequent agreements being registered, no action was taken to collect or examine them by the EOW. The court held this demonstrated a lack of initiative on the part of EOW Investigating Officer Mr. Kate. Further, the court pointed out that notices sent to the Inspector General of Registration in November 2023 and March 2024 seeking property details of the accused yielded no results as no follow-up efforts were made by the EOW. In December 2023, the BMC's Building Proposal Department provided project-related documents, including approved plans and IOD receipts, but the EOW again failed to act on this information. Failure to freeze accused's accounts The court also recalled that on June 11, 2025, another bench directed Home Department officials present in court to begin attaching the accused's properties and prevent the sale of assets, yet, significant sums were allowed to move through various accounts. In one instance, ₹45 crore was parked in an account that should have been frozen earlier. By the time action was taken, nearly the entire amount was withdrawn. Similarly in another account, ₹13.14 crore was credited after the FIR, and ₹13.16 crore was later withdrawn. A third account saw ₹3.16 crore credited and quickly moved out. "Now, notices are being issued to identify companies having independent accounts," Nishandar claimed in his affidavit. But the court dismissed this move as "too little too late", while remarking: "We are reminded of an old English phrase: 'locking the gates of the stable, after the horses have bolted.'" The court also noted that the accounts listed in the affidavit now contain merely ₹5,000 to ₹10,000, despite the fraud running into ₹45 crore. "It is quite glaring that though the affidavit runs into 15 pages and refers to a dozen documents, not a single copy has been placed on record. It appears the affiant does not want this Court to examine them," the bench said. Given the petitioners' plea to change the entire investigation team, the court has transferred the probe to the Mumbai Crime Branch under Joint Commissioner Lakhmi Gautam, who has been asked to shortlist his team. The matter will next be heard on July 30. What is the case? An FIR was registered at Amboli Police Station in September 2023 against prominent developers Imtiyaz Maredia , Pyarali Maredia , and others. for allegedly defrauding 139 homebuyers of ₹45 crore. The amount was collected under the pretext of building luxury residential towers named Meridian Heights in Jogeshwari. However, the project has remained incomplete since 2008. Victims have also alleged that the collected funds may have been diverted for personal use. Victims speak "I bought a flat in between 2020 and 2021, and possession was promised by 2023. As per RERA, the builder was to hand it over by the end of 2024, but the project is still incomplete," said Abdul Malik Khan, one of the victims. "Work has only reached the 12th floor, and construction has been stalled for the last 5 years. The site is completely shut. Every time we asked, the builders assured us that work would resume in 15 days and promised 'good news'-which never came. We're under immense mental stress. Despite paying around ₹2 crore, I'm still living in a rented apartment." Another victim, 62-year-old Ruknuddin Mansoori, said that he planned to return to India from UAE but now has nowhere to live. "In August 2008, I invested ₹87 lakh in Meridian Heights. The builder, Imtiyaz, promised me possession, but I had to push them to even sign an agreement in 2016. I'm a senior citizen. This flat was supposed to be my retirement home, bought with my hard-earned money. I don't want a refund-I just want my flat, where I dreamt of living with my children. I have tried calling the builders several times, but he doesn't respond." Mirror reached out to Nishandar, but he refused to comment. Sources in the crime branch have said that a different team has been formed.
