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 THE STATE OF HARYANA

Bench: 3 — N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Indira Banerjee

In Brief

Raju was convicted under IPC Section 376(2)(g) for alleged gang-rape of a minor girl in 2000 and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he claimed for the first time that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence. The Court directed the Registrar to conduct an age determination inquiry under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The Registrar found that Raju was 16 years old at the time of the crime, establishing him as a juvenile. The Court held that an inquiry conducted by the Registrar upon the Court's direction, when affirmed by the Court, constitutes an inquiry by the Court itself and is conclusive. The conviction was set aside, the bail bonds discharged, and all proceedings terminated, as the juvenile had already served more time than permitted under the Act.

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

Juvenile Justice Criminal Law Age Determination Sentencing Procedural Law

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