Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary

CASE BRIEF
Jurisdiction
Nationalities
  • Indian
Case Title
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra
Age at Offence
12
Age Group at Offence
Minor (Below 18)
Gender
Male
Religious Group at Offence
Hindu
Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group
  • Juvenile
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
1990s: 1998
Method of Execution
Hanging
Rights Allegedly Violated
  • Fair Trial and Due Process: Excessive and disproportionate punishment
Nature of Offences for Death Penalty
  • Murder: Multiple Victims
Expert Evidence
  • Forensic/Medical evidence: Medical examination (victim/accused, age determination etc)
Case Background (300 words max)

"The accused allegedly robbed and murdered five women and one child. The sole incriminating circumstance against the accused is the detailed testimony of the approver (Raju). The Trial Court tendered a pardon to Raju on the condition that the co-accused make a full and true disclosure of material facts within his knowledge. The Trial Court subsequently convicted the accused and sentenced him to death. In July 1999, the High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence. In September 2000, the Supreme Court, in appeal, upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused. In 2018, the Supreme Court accepted a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition made under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, claiming that the accused was a minor at the time of the commission of the offence. Finally, in March 2023, the Supreme Court held that the accused was, in fact, a minor at the time of the offence and set him free after 28 years of imprisonment. This judgment is particularly relevant due to the history of the case. While the Supreme Court found the age of the accused to be 12 at the time of the commission of the offence, the Trial Court and High Court had tried him as an adult. The accused suffered 28 years of imprisonment on a life sentence.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

Arguments made by the defense regarding the claim of juvenility (2023):

  1.    Niranaram and Narayan are the same person. Although certain age-related documents refer to the accused as Niranaram, he was tried as Narayan by the Trial Court. This discrepancy arises because the accused adopted the name Narayan, as Niranaram was difficult for people in Pune to pronounce. Therefore, all age-related documents mentioning the name Niranaram should be considered when determining his age at the time of the offense.

  2.     The accused was 12 years and 6 months old at the time of the offense, according to the certificate of date of birth issued by the Principal of the school Narayan attended. The certificate of date of birth issued by the school must be given precedence over other documents in determining the age, as per Section 94 (2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

  3.    The accused, being a minor at the time of the offense but tried as an adult, must be set free, having already served 28 years in prison
Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)

The Supreme Court found Narayanram to be a minor at the time of offence and held-

  1. Age determination: the certificate of date of birth issued by the school principal shall take precedence over other documents. While the charge sheet, electoral rolls, and family card suggest the accused was of a different age, Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act states that the certificate of date of birth shall be given priority over other forms of age verification. Hence, the age of the accused shall be considered to have been 12 years at the time the offence was committed.
  2. The claim that Narayan and Niranaram are the same person was upheld. The accused mentioned his father's name as Chetanram Chaudhary both during the trial under the name Narayan and on documents stating his name as Niranaram. This suggests that he adopted the name Narayan because Niranaram was difficult to pronounce in Pune. Additionally, the accused was arrested in Jalabsar, where the documents naming him as Niranaram originated.
  3. The Court did consider whether a child of 12 years could commit such a gruesome crime. However, the Court refrained from commenting on this as it would amount to speculation that might cloud the adjudication process.
Legal Representation Received
  • Second Appeal: Pro bono
  • Pre-trial: Unknown
  • Trial: Unknown
  • Appeal: Unknown
Legislation Related to the Offence(s)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 162, 306, 307, 308, 306(1), 306(4), 313, 337, 338, and 339 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114, 113, and 3 Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - 120-B, 297, 302, 34, 342, 392, 397, and 449.

Judicial Precedents

Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar and Ors.; Kalu Khoda and Ors. vs. The State; Lal Chand and Ors. vs. State of Haryana; Jnanendra Nath Ghose vs. The State of West Bengal; Bhiva Doulu Patil vs. State of Maharashtra; Bhuboni Sahu vs. The King; In Re: B.K. Rajagopal and Ors.; Dagdu and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra; Rameshwar vs. The State of Rajasthan; Bhuboni Sahu vs. The King; The State of Bihar vs. Basawan Singh; Hari Charan Kurmi and Ors. vs. State of Bihar; Haroon Haji Abdulla vs. State of Maharashtra; Ravinder Singh vs. State of Haryana; Balwant Kaur vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh; Niranjan Singh vs. State of Punjab; Chandan and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan; Abdul Sattar vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh; Ousu Varghese vs. State of Kerala; Jagdish vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki and Ors; State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony; Tahsildar Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh; Appabhai and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat; Rammi and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; Leela Ram (Dead) Through Duli Chand vs. State of Haryana and Ors; Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab; Ram Deo Chauhan vs. State of Assam; Maghar Singh vs. State of Punjab; Ashwani Kumar Saxena ­vs­ State of Madhya Pradesh; Abuzar Hossain alias Golam Hossain vs­ State of West Bengal; Pawan Kumar Gupta ­vs­ State (NCT of Delhi); Ravinder Singh Gorkhi ­vs­ State of U.P.; Ramdeo Chauhan @ Raj Nath ­vs­ State of Assam; Birad Mal Singhvi ­vs­ Anand Purohit;Hari Ram ­vs­ State of Rajasthan and Another; Abdul Razzaq ­vs­ State of Uttar Pradesh; Vinod Katara ­vs­ State of Uttar Pradesh; Ram Narain ­vs­ State of Uttar Pradesh; Rishipal Singh Solanki vs­ State of Uttar Pradesh and Others; Manoj v. State of Haryana & Ors.; Parag Bhati (Juvenile) through Legal Guardian­-Mother-­Rajni Bhati ­vs­ State of Uttar Pradesh

Language of Case Materials
  • English
Is the case brief featured?
Yes