CASE ANALYSIS –

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

(Term paper towards the fulfillment of the Assignment in the subject of Indian Penal Code)

SUBMITTED BY : SUBMITTED TO :

UTKARSH SAXENA (1289) RENJITH THOMAS

B.B.A LL.B (HONS.) FACULTY OF LAW

UG SEMESTER III NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

SECTION A

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

SUMMER SESSION

(JULY-NOVEMBER, 2016)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3

RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW USED IN DARGA RAM ................................................. 4

JUDICIAL APPROACHES PRIOR DARGA RAM CASE. ......................................................... 5

THE DARGA RAM JUDGMENT ................................................................................................. 6

CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 8

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 Rajasthan1.

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?

1
Darga Ram v. State of Rajastha, AIR 2015 SC 1016
 RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW USED IN DARGA RAM

Section 375 of Indian Penal Code:

A man is said to commit rape if he2-

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.3

Section 302:

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

be liable for fine.4

2
K.D Gaur, Criminal Law, 8th edition, pg. 593.
3
K.D Gaur, Criminal Law, 8th edition, pg. 587.
Section 12 (b) (3)5:

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 Orissa6, 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. Suresh7 , 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

4
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5
Juvenile Justice act, 2000.
6
Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa, 1994 SCC (3) 381
7
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471
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 Rajasthan8, 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
8
Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan , (2012) 5 SCC 201
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 houses 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 years
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 came 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.

CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS

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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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