Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahavir @ Avnish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 23 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7263
1 MCRC-24675-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24675 of 2018
MAHAVIR @ AVNISH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dinesh Savita- PP for the State.
ORDER
1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 r/w Section 362
of the Cr.P.C along with Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 seeking recall of the order dated
17.03.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2006, whereby the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against his conviction under Section 201(Part II)
of IPC was dismissed.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Bhuri and her infant
daughter Guddi alias Gudia were found dead on 13.09.2004 and it was
alleged that the accused persons, including the present petitioner, caused
disappearance of evidence by cremating the dead bodies without informing
the relatives or the police. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed for offences under Sections 302, 304-B and 201 IPC. The Trial Court,
vide judgment dated 21.12.2005 acquitted the accused persons of the charges
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/26/2026
2:57:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7263
2 MCRC-24675-2018
under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC, holding that the prosecution had failed to
establish murder or dowry death beyond reasonable doubt. However, the
Trial Court convicted the accused persons, including the petitioner, under
Section 201( Part II) of IPC, on the premise that the deaths were of
homicidal nature and the evidence thereof was destroyed. The said conviction
was affirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2006 vide order dated
17.03.2017. The Special Leave Petition preferred before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.05.2018. The present
petition raises, inter alia, a claim of juvenility, contending that the petitioner
was below 18 years of age on the date of incident i.e. 13.09.2004 as, his
correct date of birth being 1.07.1987.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that juvenility is a
jurisdictional fact, which can be raised at any stage, even after final disposal
of the case, as expressly provided under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice
Act, 2000. Documentary evidence including school records and birth-related
certificates consistently reflect the petitioner’s date of birth as
01.07.1987, making him 17 years, 2 months and 12 days old on the date of
occurrence. Even this Court, while granting bail during trial, recorded the
petitioner’s age as 17 years, which fact remained part of judicial record but
was never adjudicated. Pursuant to the directions of a Coordinate Bench, the
Juvenile Justice Board Morena, after conducting a statutory enquiry, has
already submitted a report dated 11.05.2019 categorically holding the
petitioner to be a juvenile on the date of incident. The petitioner relies upon a
catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that delay in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/26/2026
2:57:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7263
3 MCRC-24675-2018
raising juvenility is immaterial, and that the Court must adopt a liberal and
child centric approach.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon a
series of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to contend that once
juvenility is established, the Court may restrict the sentence to the period
already undergone instead of remanding the matter. Reliance has been placed
upon Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005) 3 SCC 551 , wherein it has
been authoritatively held that the determination of juvenility must be with
reference to the date of commission of the offence and not the date of
cognizance. The said judgment underscores the principle that the Juvenile
Justice Act is a beneficial legistation, requiring liberal construction in favour
of the child in conflict with law.
5. Further reliance has been placed upon Abdul Razzaq v. State of
U.P. (2015) 15 SCC 637 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that a
claim of juvenility may be raised even after final disposal of the case, and
that delay in raising such claim cannot be a ground to deny the statutory
benefit.
6. The petitioner has also relied upon Dharambir v. State (NCT of
Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 2010 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, after holding the accused to be juvenile, restricted the sentence to the
period already undergone, considering the long lapse of time.
7. Reliance has further been placed upon Satish @ Dhanna v. State of
M.P. (2009) 14 SCC 187 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
at a distant point of time, remanding the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/26/2026
2:57:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7263
4 MCRC-24675-2018
may not serve any fruitful purpose, and therefore restricted the sentence to
the period already undergone.
8. Lastly, reliance has been placed upon Vinod Katara v. State of U.P.,
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 121 of 2022 , reiterating the principle that in
borderline or ambiguous cases, courts must lean in favour of juvenility.
9. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer and prayed
for its rejection by submitting that the conviction of the petitioner has
attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The present petition, in
effect, seeks a review of the final judgement which is barred under Section
362 of the Cr.P.C. This Court, while exercising inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., does not possess appellate or revisional
jurisdiction to reappreciate evidence or alter findings already affirmed.
Hence, this petition may be dismissed.
10. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has relied upon a different line
of authority to submit that although juvenility can be raised at any stage, the
procedure prescribed by statute cannot be bypassed.
11. Reliance has been placed upon Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v.
State of U.P. (2013) 11 SCC 193 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that when a claim of juvenility is raised belatedly, the Court must follow the
procedure under Section 7-A and the Rules, and factual determination of age
must precede grant of any relief.
12. The State has further relied upon Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam
Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 , wherein a Constitution
Bench-strength judgment clarified that though juvenility can be raised at any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/26/2026
2:57:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7263
5 MCRC-24675-2018
stage, the Court is required to conduct or cause an enquiry to be
conducted, and only thereafter can the benefit be extended. The judgment
cautions against mechanically granting relief without a formal adjudication
of age.
13. Reliance has also been placed upon Parag Bhati v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2016) 12 SCC 744, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
emphasized that the claim of juvenility, particularly when raised belatedly,
must be scrutinized carefully and determined by the competent forum on the
basis of reliable evidence.
14. The State has further relied upon Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan
(2009) 13 SCC 211 , to submit that although the Juvenile Justice Act is
beneficial legislation, its procedural safeguards are equally mandatory , and
jurisdictional correction must take place in the manner known to law.
15. Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the entire material
available on record with due care.
16. This Court is conscious of the well-settled limitation that the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and
narrow as well, meant to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of
justice, and cannot be equated with the plenary powers of the Hon’ble Apex
Court vested under Article 142 of the Constitution.
17. Unlike the Hon’ble Apex Court, which possesses unrestricted
constitutional authority, this Court cannot directly modify or substitute the
sentence on equitable considerations alone, particularly after the judgment
has attained finality. However, it is equally well settled that Juvenility goes
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/26/2026
2:57:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7263
6 MCRC-24675-2018
to the very root of jurisdiction and a trial, conviction or sentence imposed by
a Court lacking jurisdiction over a juvenile is vitiated to that extent.
18. Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates that:
i) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court,
ii) The Court shall conduct an enquiry and record a finding.
iii) Even if such claim is raised after final disposal of the
case.
19. The provision is mandatory in nature and leaves discretion to the
Court once prima facie material regarding juvenility is placed on record.
20. The core issue raised in the present petition is the claim of
juvenility of the petitioner on the date of incident i.e., 13.09.2004. It is
asserted that the petitioner’s date of birth is 01.07.1987, and therefore he
was juvenile on the date of the alleged occurrence.
21. It is trite law that juvenility is not merely a mitigating
circumstances but a jurisdictional fact, which goes to the very root of the
authority of the Court to conduct trial and impose sentence. If an accused is
found to be a juvenile on the date of commission of offence, the regular
criminal courts are divested of jurisdiction to try and sentence such person in
the manner applicable to adults.
22. Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 casts a mandatory
obligation upon every Court to conduct an enquiry whenever a claim of
juvenility is raised or appears from the record. The proviso to Section 7-A
unequivocally declares that such claim may be raised at any stage, even after
final disposal of the case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/26/2026
2:57:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7263
7 MCRC-24675-2018
23. The legislative intent underlying this provision is to ensure that no
person who was a juvenile on the date of the offence is denied the protective
umbrella of juvenile justice jurisprudence on account of technicalities or
delay
24. Pursuant to the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court,
the matter was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, Morena, which
conducted an enquiry and submitted its report dated 11.05.2019 , declaring
the petitioner to be a juvenile on the date of incident. Although such report
carries persuasive value and is based on appreciation of statutory documents,
this Court is of the considered opinion that this Court does not possess
jurisdiction to interfere with the matter especially, when the matter and
travelled upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. This Court is conscious of the fact
that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are preventive and
corrective and not substitutive or appellate in nature. Unlike the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, which exercises plenary powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution, this Court does not possess unfettered authority to mould relief
beyond statutory confines. Therefore, while this Court can intervene to
ensure that a jurisdictional illegality is cured, it cannot itself assume the role
of the Trial Court and record primary findings of fact regarding juvenility or
alter the sentence on equitable considerations alone.
25. At this juncture, it is necessary to note an additional and
determinative circumstance, namely that the judgment of conviction dated
21.12.2005 passed by the Trial Court was affirmed by this Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 05/2006 vide order dated 17.03.2017, and thereafter the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/26/2026
2:57:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7263
8 MCRC-24675-2018
petitioner carried the matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8226/2017. The said Special Leave Petition
came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 11.05.2018, and admittedly, no plea
of juvenility was raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court, nor was any liberty
sought or reserved to agitate such issue at a later stage. Thus, the criminal
proceedings between the parties have attained finality up to the highest
Court.
26. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to reopen, review or nullify a
judgement which has attained finality particularly after affirmation by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
27. While Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act permits a claim of
juvenility to be raised at any stage, the said provision cannot be read in
isolation or in a manner that obliterates doctrine of finality of litigation,
especially where the accused had full opportunity to raise all available pleas
before the appellate and constitutional courts and consciously chose not to do
so. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is procedural and corrective, not
substitutive of appellate of constitutional remedies. Once the matter has
travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has been disposed of, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the same by invoking inherent powers even
on equitable considerations.
28. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner, including Pratap
Singh, Abdul Razzaq, Satish @ Dhanna, and Dharambir (supra), were
rendered in circumstances where:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/26/2026
2:57:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7263
9 MCRC-24675-2018
(i) Either the issue of juvenility was raised before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court itself; or
(ii) The Apex Court exercised its constitutional powers to do
complete justice; or
(iii) The proceedings had not attained irrevocable finality.
29. In the present case, however, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction
of the Hon’ble Apex Court without raising the plea of juvenility, thereby
allowing the conviction to attain finality on merits. Having failed to urge
such a plea at the highest forum, the petitioner cannot be permitted to
reagitate the issue collaterally by invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
30. Judicial discipline demands that once a matter has been
adjudicated up to the Hon’ble Apex Court, subordinate courts, including this
Court, must refrain from entertaining proceedings which have the effect of
unsettling concluded issues. Permitting such a course would not only run
contrary to the settled principles governing inherent jurisdiction but would
also open floodgates for endless litigations, defeating the very object of
criminal jurisprudence.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that although
the claim of juvenility is statutorily recognizable, the present case stands on a
different footing as the matter has attained finality up to the Hon’ble apex
Court. The plea of juvenility was never raised before the Apex Court and
this Court, in exercise of its limited jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C., cannot interfere with or reopen a concluded judgment.
32. Accordingly, finding no ground for interference, the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/26/2026
2:57:04 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7263
10 MCRC-24675-2018
petition is dismissed. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the
merits of the conviction afresh and the dismissal is based on the bar of
finality and limitation of inherent jurisdiction. The petition stands dismissed
accordingly.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/26/2026
2:57:04 PM
