CASE ANALYSIS

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

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.

 RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW USED IN DARGA RAM

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:

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

1
Juvenile Justice act, 2000.
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 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.