CASE BRIEF: NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 340

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India considered the conviction of Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary, who was given the death penalty for the 1994 murder of seven people in Pune, Maharashtra, including five women and two children, in the case of Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary vs. The State of Maharashtra (2023). The applicant had been detained for more than 28 years after being captured on September 5, 1994. The applicant’s claim of juvenility at the time of the offense was the main point of contention in this case since, if proven, it would affect his sentencing under the 2015 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

A 2019 birth certificate showing the applicant’s date of birth as February 1, 1982, which would have made him around 12 years and 6 months old at the time of the offense, served as the basis for his juvenile plea. Nevertheless, this certificate was not produced during the trial or appellate stages and was granted 25 years after the crime. According to the charge sheet, the applicant was about 20 years old at the time of the offense, the prosecution argued.

After carefully reviewing the material, which included the applicant’s birth certificate and academic records, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the applicant was, in fact, a minor at the time of the offense. The Court underlined that juvenility should not be determined just by the severity or scope of the offense. As a result, the Court ruled against the death penalty and ordered that the petitioner be dealt with as a juvenile criminal, subject to the proper legal repercussions.

This case emphasizes how crucial it is to ascertain the accused’s age at the time of the offense because it has a big impact on the sentence and rehabilitation procedures. It also demonstrates the Court’s dedication to protecting minors’ rights, even when there have been significant crimes committed.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Five women, one of whom was pregnant, and two children were killed in a horrific murder committed by Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and two accomplices in Pune, Maharashtra, on August 26, 1994. The murders took place in the victims’ homes, and the criminals then ran away. On September 5, 1994, Narayan was taken into custody in his hometown of Jalabsar, which is in the Bikaner district of Rajasthan’s Shri Dungargarh tehsil. He was identified as Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary over the course of the investigation. According to the chargesheet against him, he was around 20 years old when the offense occurred.

Narayan did not enter the plea of juvenility throughout the trial. The testimony of an approver, Raju, who had turned state’s witness and received a pardon, was among the evidence the prosecution provided. Narayan was found guilty by the trial court and given the death penalty. In July 1999, the Bombay High Court maintained the verdict and sentence, and in September 2000, the Supreme Court denied his appeal.

When Narayan applied for a prison graduate course in 2019, his personal records were examined. He found a birth certificate dated January 30, 2019, during this process, which showed that he was born on February 1, 1982, making him around 12 years and 6 months old at the time of the incident. The Rajakiya Adarsh Uccha Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jalabsar, headmaster, granted this certificate in the name of Niranaram, son of Chetanram. Narayan claimed juvenility at the time of the offense in an application he submitted under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, based on this new information. 

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the petitioner’s cited documents are real, valid, and reliable enough to determine juvenility?
• Is it appropriate to accept his act of pretending to be Niranaram at such a late time? The Inquiring Judge acknowledged the applicant’s claim that Narayan and Niranaram were the same person in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the Inquiry Report.
• Did the Inquiring Judge’s approach comply with the 2015 Act’s requirements?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the applicant

• Based on a 2019 birth certificate that listed his date of birth as February 1, 1982, the petitioner argued that he was a minor at the time of the offense. At the time of the crime, he would have been around 12 years and 6 months old. He maintained that this certificate and other records proved his youth.
• The applicant pointed out inconsistencies in the documents, such as differences in his name and age, which he ascribed to time and clerical mistakes. He claimed that these discrepancies should not overshadow the substantial proof of his youth.
• He claimed that his rights under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which forbids the death penalty for minors, were violated by being prosecuted as an adult when he was still a minor.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• Given that the 2019 birth certificate was issued 25 years after the crime and was not produced at the trial or appellate phases, the prosecution questioned its validity. They argued that a paper this late was not credible.
• According to the charge sheet, the applicant was around 20 years old at the time of the offense, according to the prosecution. Their argument was that the facts presented at the trial refuted the applicant’s unfounded claim of being a juvenile.
• The state argued that the applicant had not invoked the plea of juvenility during the trial or appellate phases, and that the Supreme Court had upheld the verdict and death sentence in 2000. They maintained that there was no justification for reopening the case on the grounds of a late claim of juvenility.

JUDGMENT

The complaint and the State have attempted to refute the applicant’s argument using only the information he revealed, excluding the electoral roll. In this case, we are unable to speculate or cast doubt on the record in the school register. The applicant’s age, as stated in the aforementioned document, has not been refuted by any proof. Since the Act itself provides a certificate of date of birth as proof of age, we will use that. Another question that has come to me is whether a 12-year-old boy could have committed such a horrific deed.

To ascertain the applicant’s age at the time of the offense for which he was found guilty, the date of birth as shown on the certificate issued by the Rajkiya Adarsh Uccha Madhaymik Vidyalaya, Jalabsar, tehsil  Shri Dungargarh, district – Bikaner, dated 30 January 2019, a copy of which is annexed in the Inquiry Report as “I2,” must be accepted. According to that certificate, he was 12 years and 6 months old when the offense was committed. 

According to the 2015 Act’s requirements, he was, therefore, a child or juvenile on the day he committed the crime for which he was found guilty. Since Niranaram was tried and found guilty as Narayan, this will be considered to be his actual age. He has already served more than three years in prison, and he is not eligible for the death penalty under the 2015 Act or the laws in effect at the time the offense was committed. 

Given this conclusion, the death sentence imposed on him in Sessions Case No. 462 of 1994 by the Additional Sessions Judge of Pune, which the High Court and this Court later upheld, would be declared legally void. Since he has been incarcerated for more than 28 years, he will be immediately released from the correctional facility where he is currently housed, taking into account the terms of Section 18 of the 2015 Act. 

CONCLUSION

A 2019 birth certificate showing the applicant’s date of birth as February 1, 1982, which would have made him around 12 years and 6 months old at the time of the offense, served as the basis for his juvenile plea. Nevertheless, this certificate was not produced during the trial or appellate stages and was granted 25 years after the crime. According to the charge sheet, the applicant was about 20 years old at the time of the offense, the prosecution argued.

After carefully reviewing the material, which included the applicant’s birth certificate and academic records, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the applicant was, in fact, a minor at the time of the offense. The Court underlined that juvenility should not be determined just by the severity or scope of the offense. As a result, the Court ruled against the death penalty and ordered that the petitioner be dealt with as a juvenile criminal, subject to the proper legal repercussions.

This case emphasizes how crucial it is to ascertain the accused’s age at the time of the offense because it has a big impact on the sentence and rehabilitation procedures. It also demonstrates the Court’s dedication to protecting minors’ rights, even when there have been significant crimes committed.