Facts
The revision petitioner was charged under Sections 64(2), 64(2)(M), 89, 115(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023; Sections 5L/6 and 5(J)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012; and Sections 3/5 of the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021.
Source reference: p.1The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, concealing his religious identity, repeatedly sexually assaulted the child victim starting on 23.03.2025, resulting in her pregnancy and its subsequent forced termination.
Source reference: p.3The petitioner claimed a date of birth of 30.04.2007, asserting he was a "Child in Conflict with Law" (17 years and 10 months old) at the time of the initial incident.
Source reference: p.1-2However, the trial court found that the victim's statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS indicated the offences, including threats and pressure for religious conversion, continued until 03.06.2025 and 07.08.2025.
Source reference: p.3-4The trial court rejected the claim of juvenility, leading to this revision petition.
Source reference: p.2Issues
1. Whether the claim of juvenility must be determined based on the date of the first incident or the date of the last incident in a series of continuous offences.
Source reference: p.3, para 62. Whether the petitioner can be treated as a "Child in Conflict with Law" under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, when the alleged criminal conduct extends beyond his attainment of majority.
Source reference: p.4, para 10Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 2(12) and 2(13) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which defines a "child" and "child in conflict with law" as a person who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date of the offence.
Source reference: p.2It relied on the precedent established in Vikas Chaudhary v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2010) 8 SCC 508, which holds that in the case of a "continuing offence," the relevant date for determining juvenility is the date on which the last act of the offence was committed.
Source reference: p.4, para 8Reasoning
The Court observed that while the petitioner's date of birth (30.04.2007) was accepted, the nature of the crime was not a single isolated act but a series of continuous incidents.
Source reference: p.3, para 6-7The Court noted that the penetrative sexual assaults, forced termination of pregnancy, and subsequent threats for religious conversion formed a continuous chain of events.
Source reference: p.4, para 9Applying the doctrine of continuing offences from Vikas Chaudhary, the Court reasoned that the first incident of 23.03.2025 could not be segregated from subsequent acts occurring on 03.06.2025 and 07.08.2025.
Source reference: p.4-5Since the petitioner attained majority on 30.04.2025 and continued to commit the alleged offences thereafter, the Juvenile Justice Act ceased to be applicable.
Source reference: p.5, para 10Holding
The Court answered the issues by holding that when an offence is continuing in nature, the date of the last incident determines the status of the accused.
Since the petitioner continued the criminal acts well after attaining the age of 18, the trial court's order rejecting the claim of juvenility was found to be just and proper.
Source reference: p.5, para 10The Criminal Revision was dismissed, and the petitioner shall be tried as an adult.
Source reference: p.5, para 11Original Court PDF
W v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [2026:MPHC-IND:6403]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in