Rajasthan High Court Passes Order For Acquittal Of Jaipur Bomb Blast Accused

WHAT DID THE COURT SAY?

• In Mohd. Salman v. State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court passed an order for the acquittal of the Jaipur bomb blast case accused on the ground that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident. 
• A Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Sameer Jain set aside the order passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur, wherein the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board to declare the appellant as a juvenile was quashed. 

WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT?

• In this case, Mohd. Salman, the appellant was arrested in November 2008 for involvement in the Jaipur bomb blast case. 
• In 2014, the Juvenile Justice Board passed an order declaring the appellant as a juvenile on the date of occurrence of the incident. 
• The District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur vide an order quashed the declaration made by the Juvenile Justice Board and passed an order for the conviction of the appellant. 
• Consequently, the present appeal was filed against the impugned order and judgement of the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

• The counsel for the appellants contended that as per the findings of the Juvenile Justice Board, the appellant was a minor on the date of the occurrence of the incident. Hence, the order for his conviction was arbitrary and needs to be set aside.
• The counsel for the respondents contended that the Ld. Sessions Judge, Jaipur passed the order for the conviction of the appellant after considering every circumstance in the matter and thus, the same should be upheld by the High Court as well. 

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT AND DECISION:

• The Ld. Court observed that as per the material present on record, the appellant’s date of birth as per his mother is February 9, 1992, and as per the matriculation certificate, it is October 3, 1992. 
• The court further observed that according to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate would be given preference rather than the one claimed by a relative. 
• Consequently, the court held that since the appellant was a juvenile at the date of occurrence, the order granting his conviction needs to be set aside. 
• Accordingly, an order granting acquittal of the appellant was passed by the High Court. 

What do you think about the decision of the Court? Let us know in the comments section below!