AMITY UNIVERSITY RAJASTHAN

DRAFTING PLEADING & CONVEYANCING

ASSIGNMENT

CASE ANALYSIS:

DARGA RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, AIR 2015 SC 1016

SUBMITTED BY- SUBMITTED TO-

In Darga Ram v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court concluded that the accused was not liable for

murder and rape of the minor girl as he was a juvenile when he committed the said act and he has

already reserved for about 14 years during the trial. The author tries to analysis the judgment of the case

and gives his personal opinion of the case. Part I of the analysis deals with relevant laws applicable and

prior judgments related to the case. Part II deals with the Judgment of the case and Part III deals with the

Conclusion and Analysis of the case.

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court on 8th January, 2015 decided the case of Darga Ram v. State of Rajasthan. The main

issues which the Apex Court dealt were:

1. Whether the respondent/accused herein who is alleged to have committed an offence of rape and

murder under Section 376 and 302 IPC, can be allowed to avail the benefit of protection to a

juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as pleaded by

him?

2. Whether medical evidence and other attending circumstances would be of any value and

assistance while determining the age of a juvenile, if the academic record certificates were not

presented to prove the age of the accused?

3. Whether reliance should be placed on medical evidence if the certificates relating to academic

records are not available.

Section 375 of Indian Penal Code:

A man is said to commit rape if he-

A) Penetrates his penis into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so

with him or any other person

B) Inserts any object or a part of the body, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes

her to do so with him or any other person

C) Manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra,

anus or any other body part of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person

D) Applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, and urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or

any other person.

Section 376 of Indian Penal Code:

Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with

rigorous punishment of either description for a term not less than seven years, but which may extend to

imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 302:

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable

for fine.

Section 12 (b) (3)1:

1
Juvenile Justice act, 2000.
Procedure to be followed in determination of Age- The medical opinion will be sought from a duly

constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment

of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons

to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering

his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year

JUDICIAL APPROACHES PRIOR DARGA RAM CASE.

In Laxman Naik vs State Of Orissa, one of the landmark cases related to rape and murder of a minor. In

this case, the appellant was accused of rape and murder of a seven year old girl who was his niece. The

accused asked the deceased to accompany him to the nearby jungle where he brutally raped and

murdered the minor girl. The court relied on the circumstantial evidence and testimonies of witnesses it

came to be held that when circumstances form a complete chain of incidents, and then the same is

sufficient to establish, that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and conviction can be based on the

complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The injuries of the victim were sufficient to prove the gross

brutality with which the rape and murder had been committed and hence it fulfills the complete chain of

circumstantial evidence and was held liable under Section 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh , it was held by the court that it was open to a court to presume that

the accused knew about the incriminating material or dead body due to his involvement in the alleged

offence. When he discloses the location of such incriminating material without disclosing the manner in

which he came to know of the same, the Court would presume that the accused knew about the

incriminating material.
In Om Prakash v/s State of Rajasthan, It is a case in which a minor was raped and murdered by the

accused who pleaded that he was a juvenile when he committed the crime. It was held by the apex court

that if the accused does not have the requisite documental evidence to show that he was juvenile when

he committed the crime than medical evidence which indicated that accused was a minor would be given

primacy and he would entitled to protection under the Juvenile Justice Act and such statutory protection

is available only to minors who are innocent law-breakers and not to accused persons of matured mind

who use plea of minority to protect themselves from punishment It was further stated by the court that a

doctor's examination of age is only an opinion, but where such opinion is based on scientific medical

tests like ossification test and radiological examination, it will be treated as strong evidence having

corroborative value while determining age of alleged juvenile accused.

THE DARGA RAM JUDGMENT

On 11th April, 1998, a First Information Report was filed in the State of Rajasthan stating that the

complainant on 9th April, 1998 had organised a "Jaagran" near a well. The complainant and other

relatives, in all around 50 persons assembled for the "Jaagran" that continued till late night. This

included the complainant’s seven year old daughter, Kamala, who went to sleep along with other

children close to the place where the "Jaagran" was held. When the complainant returned to his house he

noticed that Kamala was missing. Assuming that she may have gone away with one of the relatives, a

search was made at their house but Kamala remained untraceable. The search was then extended to

neighboring areas where the dead body of Kamala was discovered. On receiving this information the

complainant went to the place and found that Kamala had been raped and killed by crushing her head

with a stone. The dead body of Kamala was, lying on the spot.
The Supreme Court in its judgment approved the argument of the accused that he was a juvenile when

he committed the act by pointing out that, since the Appellant did not have any documentary evidence

like a school or other certificate referred to under the Act mentioned above, this Court had directed the

Principal, Government Medical College, Jodhpur, to constitute a Board of Doctors for medical

examination including radiological examination of the Appellant to determine the age of the Appellant

as in April, 1998 when the offence in question was committed. The medical opinion given by the duly

constituted Board comprising Professors of Anatomy, Radio diagnosis and Forensic Medicine has

determined his age to be about 33 years on the date of the examination. The Board has not been able to

give the exact age of the Appellant on medical examination no matter advances made in that field. That

being so in terms of Rule 12 (3) (b) the Appellant may even be entitled to benefit of fixing his age on the

lower side within a margin of one year in case the Court considers it necessary to do so in the facts and

circumstances of the case. The need for any such statutory concession may not however arise because

even if the estimated age as determined by the Medical Board is taken as the correct/true age of the

Appellant he was just about 17 years and 2 months old on the date of the occurrence and thus a juvenile

within the meaning of that expression as used in the Act aforementioned. The general rule about age

determination is that the age as determined can vary plus minus two year but the Board has in the case at

hand spread over a period of six years and taken a mean to fix the age of the Appellant at 33 years.

The Apex court after hearing the contentions of both the parties and the medical reports of the accused

come to a conclusion that we have persuaded ourselves to go by the age estimate given by the Medical

Board and to declare the Appellant to be a juvenile as on the date of the occurrence no matter the

offence committed by him is heinous. The sentence awarded to him shall stand set aside with a direction

that the Appellant shall be set free from prison.

The case of Darga Ram is not a best example of how the age of a person should be determined when the

act was committed. The court relied on the estimated age of the accused as determined by the medical

board. The accused was aged 17 years and 2 months old when the act was committed according to the

medical reports. The apex court also took into consideration that the exact age of the accused has not

been estimated no matter how much advancement has been made in this field.

According to the researcher, there is a loophole in the law as to how a person could be declared as a

juvenile. If the birth certificate or any other certificate is provided before the court than the court

explicitly relies on that documents only and such documents can be easily forged by anyone. If the

medical test also does not state the exact age of the accused and if there is a reasonable doubt that the

accused was not a juvenile when the act was committed, then the court should rely on the intention or

the level of the offence rather than the age of the accused.

The judgment of the court is right in one way that the accused has already served for 14 years and that is

the only reason why he should be convicted of the offence of rape and murder of a minor. According to

the researcher this judgment should not be used as a precedent as the only the reason why the accused

was acquitted was that he had already served for a very long time and in many cases the accused do not

serve such a long period of time.

In the present time, after the Delhi rape case in 2012 (Nirbhaya Gang rape), the juvenile justice

amendment bill, 2015, which into force on 1st January, 2016, allows those children aged 16 to 18 years

and in conflict with the law to be tried as adults in heinous offences. Rape and murder also comes under

the ambit of heinous offences and such crimes committed by a minor aged 16 to 18 years should be tried

as adults and not as juveniles.

Cases

Darga Ram v. State of Rajastha, AIR 2015 SC 1016......................................................................3

Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa, 1994 SCC (3) 381........................................................................5

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan , (2012) 5 SCC 201...................................................................6

State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471........................................................................6

Statutes

Indian Penal Code, 1860..................................................................................................................5

Juvenile Justice act, 2000................................................................................................................5

Treatises

K.D Gaur, Criminal Law, 8th edition, pg. 587.................................................................................4

K.D Gaur, Criminal Law, 8th edition, pg. 593.................................................................................4