Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of Delhi: Juvenility Plea Dismissed by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has pronounced its verdict in the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of Delhi, where the plea of juvenility raised by the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta was rejected. Despite multiple attempts at different levels of the judiciary, including the Metropolitan Magistrate, High Court, and Supreme Court, the plea of juvenility was consistently dismissed. The recent decision by the Supreme Court reaffirms the rejection of the petitioner’s claim in this crucial legal battle.


  • Accused Pawan Kumar Gupta filed SLP challenging the order of the High Court dismissing his claim of juvenility.
  • Supreme Court had already considered and rejected the plea of juvenility by its order dated 09.07.2018 after verifying documents.
  • High Court, in its order, referred to the Supreme Court’s decision and the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order of 10.01.2013 which confirmed the accused’s age.
  • High Court also mentioned that the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order of 10.01.2013, confirming the accused’s age, was not challenged.
  • High Court, after considering all submissions, rejected the plea of juvenility raised by the accused.

Also Read: Judgment on Service of Summons and Authenticity of Power of Attorney


  • Petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta claims to be a juvenile at the time of the offense based on a School Leaving Certificate.
  • The petition was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Supreme Court, rejecting the plea of juvenility in a review petition.
  • The learned counsel argues that the High Court passed the order without hearing the petitioner.
  • As per the School Leaving Certificate, petitioner’s date of birth is 08.10.1996, indicating he was a juvenile at the time of the offense.
  • The counsel contends that the High Court’s observations were prejudicial to the petitioner’s rights.
  • The Age Verification Report filed by the investigating officer was not objected to by the accused Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar during the trial.

Also Read: Balaji v. Nargolkar: Auction Sale Set Aside


  • The claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the case even after its final disposal.
  • In the case of Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 17 SCC 699, it was held that juvenility claim can be raised at any point.
  • The accused had previously raised the plea of juvenility before the Metropolitan Magistrate, High Court, and Supreme Court, which was rejected at all levels.
  • The age verification report of the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta was received and not disputed by the accused or their parents.
  • Certified copies of admission registers and statements from parents confirmed the accused were above 18 years at the time of the offense.
  • The rejection of the plea of juvenility by the Metropolitan Magistrate was justified based on the evidence presented.
  • The order dated 10.01.2013 regarding the age verification report was not challenged by the petitioner.
  • The High Court and Supreme Court also upheld the rejection of the juvenility plea in previous judgments.
  • The trial court had considered all relevant evidence before concluding that both accused were not juveniles.
  • The parents’ confirmation of their wards’ ages was a crucial factor in determining juvenility.
  • Section 7A of the JJ Act allows for filing applications at any stage, even after final disposal, but repeated pleas of juvenility after rejections are not permissible.
  • The plea of juvenility was raised by the petitioner at the first instance during the trial court proceedings.
  • The submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was considered
  • No opinion was expressed on the submission as it was not relevant to the current issue

Also Read: Jurisdiction of Family Court in Cases under Muslim Women’s Protection Act


  • Mr. Singh has the liberty to take separate proceedings against the observations made by the High Court against him.
  • The Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been dismissed.


Case Number: SLP(Crl) No.-000547 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *