The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and three-year sentence of Mahavir alias Avnish in a case arising from the death of a woman and her infant daughter in Madhya Pradesh, holding that he was a juvenile when the incident took place.
A Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra found that the Juvenile Justice Board had established his age as below 18 years on the date of the incident. The Court also held that the conviction under Section 201 Part II of the Indian Penal Code could not legally be sustained.
Background of the Case
The case concerned the deaths of Bhuri and her infant daughter Guddi, whose bodies were found on a railway track near Sikrauda village in Morena district on September 13, 2004.
Mahavir and other family members were initially tried for offences including murder, dowry death and causing disappearance of evidence. The trial court, however, did not find the charges of murder and dowry death proved and convicted the accused under Section 201 Part II IPC, relating to causing disappearance of evidence of an offence.
In December 2005, Mahavir was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000. His appeal was later dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. His subsequent Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was withdrawn in May 2018.
Mahavir later raised a claim of juvenility. The Juvenile Justice Board, Morena, examined school records, a birth certificate and witness evidence and recorded his date of birth as July 1, 1987. It consequently found that he was 17 years, two months and 12 days old on September 13, 2004.
Supreme Court Examines Juvenility Claim
The Supreme Court noted that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 permits a claim of juvenility to be raised even after the final disposal of a case. It stressed that age has to be assessed with reference to the date of commission of the offence.
The Court found that the High Court had taken an overly technical approach in refusing to revisit the matter merely because the earlier proceedings had reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court pointed out that Mahavir's Special Leave Petition had actually been dismissed as withdrawn, rather than being decided on the merits.
The Court further explained that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be used as a routine substitute for an appeal, but those powers remain available where a judicial error causes serious prejudice and interference is necessary to secure justice.
Conviction Under S. 201 IPC Found Legally Unsustainable
A crucial issue before the Court was the conviction under Section 201 Part II IPC. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 304B IPC.
It held that a conviction under Section 201 requires a finding that an offence had been committed and that the accused, knowing or having reason to believe that such an offence had occurred, caused evidence of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.
The Court therefore concluded:
“Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under section 201 Part II of the Indian Penal Code must be held illegal.”
Decision
The Supreme Court set aside Mahavir's conviction under Section 201 Part II IPC and consequently quashed both the judgment of conviction and the sentence dated December 21, 2005.
As he was already on bail, the Court discharged him from the liability of the bail bonds. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Details
Case Title: Mahavir @ Avnish v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5654 of 2026
Judges: Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Decision Date: September 2, 2026
-300x169.webp)
