Previous 24 / 38 Next

jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board on the award of sentence. 29. In our opinion, the course to adopt is laid down in Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This reads as follows: “20. Special provision in respect of pending cases.—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence: Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile. Explanation.-In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of clause (l) of 24

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Karan @ Faitya

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: Karan @ Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Age at Offence: 15

Age Group at Offence: Minor (Below 18)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Hindu

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Juvenile
Socio-economic Status

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): India

Contributing TRP Partner

The Square Circle Clinic (India)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Commuted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2018

Method of Execution: Hanging

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Fair investigation & fair disclosure
Fair Trial and Due Process: Right against arbitrary or illegal detention

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Sexual Violence: Rape
Murder: Single Victim

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: DNA/Serology/Biology

Case Background (300 words max): The case against the accused was of kidnapping, raping and murdering a minor girl (4 year old). The circumstances against the accused are: last seen evidence; forensic evidence (blood of the victim found on accused’s clothes). The trial court convicted the accused and awarded the death sentence on 17.05.2018 and confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 15.11.2018. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence, on 03.03.2023. The judgment is significant for its record of the Supreme Court having directed the Trial Court to carry out an enquiry into the accused's juvenility to verify the claim put forward. On the basis of the inquiry conducted, the court found that the accused was 15 years and 4 months old at the time of the incident, a fact which was not raised or considered during his trial and High Court appeal.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

The defence argued

Juvenility: Under this, it claimed benefits available under the Juvenile Justice Act, as proven by the Trial Court’s report – which itself was based on both documentary evidence (roll register, marksheets, date of birth certificate issued by the accused’s school) and oral evidence (testimonies of administrators and teachers).
Sentencing: Based on the juvenile status, the maximum punishment that the accused could have been sentenced to is 3 years stay in a special home, and therefore could not have been sentenced to death. Further, the accused had already undergone incarceration of over 5 years, exceeding the maximum sentence that can be imposed on juveniles under Indian law by 2 years.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)

Juvenility: Based on the strength of the Trial Court’s report, the court accepted the claim that the accused was a juvenile on the date of the incident, and dismissed the prosecution’s argument for an ossification test.
Sentencing: Based on the accused’s juvenility, the sentence imposed by the lower court was found to have no effect, and there was no need to send him to a Juvenile Justice Board or child facility, as he had reached the age of 20. Further, since he had already exceeded the maximum sentence that could be awarded to a juvenile, his release was ordered.

Legal Representation Received

Second Appeal: Pro bono
Pre-trial: Unknown
Trial: Unknown
Appeal: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Sections 363, 372(2)(i), 302, 201 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Section 5(m)/6 – Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO)

Judicial Precedents: Jitendra Singh alias Babboo Singh and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Mahesh vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, Satya Deo alias Bhoorey vs. State of atya Deo alias Bhoorey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Raju vs.State of Haryana, Ashok Kumar Mehra and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others