B v. State of U.P.: Juvenile on Incident Date, Case Quashed

Juvenile on Date of Incident: Supreme Court Quashes Murder Proceedings After Ordering Age Inquiry

Published: 12 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

In B v. State of U.P. & Anr., the Supreme Court accepted the report of a juvenility inquiry it had ordered and reiterated that the appellant, convicted by the trial court in 2014 under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the SC/ST Act, was a juvenile on the date of the incident. It quashed the criminal proceedings against him and allowed his appeal (paras 4, 17-18).

Key holdings

Though the trial court rejected the juvenility plea in 2014, the Supreme Court had the Sessions Court inquire into it, with interim bail for the appellant (paras 3, 10).

The Special Judge held his date of birth proved by oral and documentary evidence and declared him a juvenile in conflict with law (paras 13-14).

Even with two years added to the medical age estimate, he was below 18 on the date of the incident, the Special Judge found (para 13).

The Court accepted the report, reiterated that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident and quashed the proceedings against him (para 17).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The appellant was booked for the murder of three persons under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, in District Azamgarh (para 2). On 02.01.2014 the trial court rejected his application for an age examination, holding that the plea of juvenility was never raised during the trial and that the school certificate was not supported by reliable documentary evidence (para 3). On 12.09.2014 it convicted him; the sentences included rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (para 4). The Allahabad High Court dismissed his criminal revision on 25.07.2025 (para 5). The State asked the Court for appropriate orders on the inquiry report (para 15).

Court's Findings

On 15.05.2026, on the plea that he was about 17 on the date of the incident and had completed over fourteen years in custody, the Court directed the concerned Sessions Court to hold an inquiry into his juvenility within four months and released him on interim bail till 30.10.2026 to take part in it (paras 9-10). The Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Azamgarh examined CW1 to CW6 for the appellant (para 12). The Special Judge held the date of birth proved by oral and documentary evidence, and found that a medical age report of 22.02.2013, even with two years added, put him below 18 on the date of the incident (para 13). He declared the appellant a juvenile in conflict with law (para 14). Perusing that report, dated 10.09.2026, and ‘taking note of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, applicable to the case at hand’, the Court accepted it and reiterated that the appellant ‘was a juvenile on the date of the incident’ (para 17). It quashed the proceedings against him; ‘Consequential steps shall follow before the concerned Sessions Court’ (para 18). The order does not separately discuss the conviction or the sentences.

Legal Principle

The order lays down no wider rule. Once a juvenility inquiry it had ordered found the appellant below 18 on the date of the incident, the Court, taking note of the applicable Juvenile Justice Act provisions, accepted the report and quashed the criminal proceedings against him, leaving consequential steps to the Sessions Court (paras 17-18).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

This order turns on a factual inquiry, not a new rule. The trial court had refused to examine the appellant's age in 2014, partly because the plea of juvenility had not been raised during the trial (para 3). The Supreme Court instead had his juvenility examined by the Sessions Court, with interim bail so that he could take part, and then acted on the report (paras 10, 17). The Special Judge relied on the father's evidence of the date of birth and on a medical age report read with a two-year margin (para 13). The order quashes the proceedings and leaves what follows to the Sessions Court (para 18).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.