Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Friday, 07 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-02-22 allowed

Raju vs State of Haryana

Bench: 3 — Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

In Brief

The appellant was convicted of gang rape along with two others under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. He claimed during appeal that he was a juvenile (under 18) at the time of the offence. The High Court rejected this plea. The Supreme Court ordered a formal age inquiry under the Juvenile Justice Act 2000, which established he was 16 years old when the crime occurred. The Court held that a proper statutory inquiry under Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, based on school certificates and records, takes precedence over the High Court's assessment made without following prescribed procedure. The conviction was set aside and he was released, having already served 6 years (exceeding the 3-year maximum for juveniles).

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Juvenile Justice Criminal Procedure Age Determination Gang Rape Evidence Supreme Court Jurisdiction High Court Review

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login