Previous 7 / 38 Next

approved, then the appellant would be declared to be a child which may then entail necessary consequences as per the 2015 Act. It would be relevant to note here that no objection has been filed by the respondent-State to the report submitted by the Trial Court. The only submission advanced on behalf of the respondent-State is for getting the ossification test conducted. 9. We have perused the report and also the material evidence led before the Trial Court on the basis of which the conclusion has been drawn by the Trial Court. The report is based upon documentary evidence as also oral evidence of the present head-mistress (IW-01), the retired headmaster (IW-08), five teachers of the primary institution (IW-02, IW-04, IW-07, IW-09 and IW-10) and also the guardian of the appellant (IW-06). It would also be pertinent to notice that the institution is not a private institution but is a government primary school and this Court does not find any reason to dis-believe or even doubt the testimony of government servants both working and 7

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