上一步 38 / 38 下一步

custody. He shall be released forthwith. The impugned judgement shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. 36. Both the appeals stand partly allowed. 37. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. ……................................J. [B.R. GAVAI] .………….........................J. [VIKRAM NATH] .………….........................J. [SANJAY KAROL] NEW DELHI MARCH 03, 2023. 38

選擇目標文字3

● ● ●

Karan @ Faitya

案件摘要

司法管轄

印度

國籍

印度人

案件標題: Karan Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh

作案時年齡: 15

作案時年齡組: 未成年（18歲以下）

性别: 男性

犯罪時的宗教信仰: 印度教

弱勢 / 邊緣群體身份

未成年人
社會經濟地位

司法轄區 - 地理定位

緯度: 20.5937

經度: 78.9629

司法轄區 - 地理定位 (已連結案件摘要): 印度

瑞慈合作機構

The Square Circle Clinic (印度)

該國最新死刑狀態

保留死刑

案件現狀: 已結案: 減刑

判處死刑年份: 2010s: 2018

執行方式: 絞刑

涉嫌侵犯的權利

公正審判與正當程序權利: 免受任意或非法拘禁的權利
公正審判與正當程序權利: 公正調查與信息披露

死刑所涉罪名的性質

性暴力: Rape
謀殺: 一名受害者

專家證據

法醫 / 醫學證據: DNA / 血清學 / 生物學
法醫 / 醫學證據: 屍檢 / 死後檢驗

案件背景 (最多300字): 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.

辯方意見 (最多200字)

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 accused could not be awarded the death sentence. Further, he had already undergone incarceration of over 5 years, exceeding the maximum sentence that can be awarded to juveniles under Indian law by 2 years.

判决摘要 (最多200字)

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.

獲得法律代理的情況

第二次上訴階段: 公益律師
偵查前階段: 未知
審判階段: 未知
上訴階段: 未知

與罪名相關的立法: 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)

司法判例: 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