Back
2010 (3) Supreme 423
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and J.M. Panchal , JJ.
Dharambir — Appellant
versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.102 of 2010)
Decided on : 23-04-2010
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000-Sections15,16-Juvenile Delinquent-Sentence to be awarded for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC - Section 15 of Act of 2000 provides for various orders which the Juvenile Justice Board may pass against a juvenile when it is satisfied that juvenile has committed an offence, which includes an order directing juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of three years- Section 16 of the Act of 2000 stipulates that where a juvenile who has attained age of sixteen years has committed an offence and the Board is satisfied that the offence committed is so serious in nature that it would not be in his interest or in the interest of other juvenile in a special home to send him to such special home and that none of the other measures provided under Act is suitable or sufficient, Board may order the juvenile in conflict with law to be kept in such place of safety and in such manner as it thinks fit and shall report the case for the order of the State Government- Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act of 2000 provides that the period of detention so ordered shall not exceed in any case the maximum period provided under Section 15 of the said Act, i.e., for three years- In the instant case, appellant had undergone an actual period of sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 4 days and was now aged about thirty five years-Keeping in view the age of the appellant held not conducive to the environment in the special home and to the interest of other juveniles housed in the special home, to refer him to the Board for passing orders for sending the appellant to special home or for keeping him at some other place of safety for the remaining period of less than eight months, the maximum period for which he could now be kept in either of the two places. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the Case :
Present Appeal has been filed against judgment and order delivered by High Court whereby High Court while acquitting one of the co-convicts, upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC for committing murder of one of their close relative and for attempting to murder his brother. It was contended that since at the time of commission of the said offences, appellant had not completed eighteen years of age, he was a juvenile within the meaning of Section 2(k) of “the Act of 2000” and an inquiry in terms of Section 7A of the Act of 2000 has to be made so as to determine the age of Appellant.
Findings of the Court :
It is, manifest from a conjoint reading of Sections 2(k), 2(l),7A, 20 and 49 of the Act of 2000, read with Rules 12 and 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 that all persons who were below the age of eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to 1st April, 2001 would be treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the date of commencement of the Act of 2000 and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted. Instantly as per the report of the Registrar submitted in terms of Section 7A of the Act of 2000, age of appellant as on the date of commission of offences was 16 years, 9 months and 8 days. The correctness of the estimate of age by the Registrar was not questioned by the State. The parties had, therefore, accepted correctness of the age determined by Registrar. In the light of said legal position, appellant had to be held to be a juvenile as on the date of the Commission of the offences for which he had been convicted and was to be governed by provisions of Act of 2000. While sustaining conviction of appellant sentences awarded to him quashed and direction given for his release forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal was allowed partly to said extent.
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2.This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 6th November, 2009, delivered by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No.140 of 1994. By the impugned judgment, while acquitting one of the co-convicts, the High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”), for committing murder of one of their close relative and for attempting to murder his brother. The appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. For offence under Section 307/34 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation.
3.When the matter came up for motion hearing, Mr. K. Parasaran, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, submitted at the very outset that since at the time of commission of the said offences, the appellant had not completed eighteen years of age, he was a juvenile within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short “the Act of 2000”), an inquiry in terms of Section 7A of the Act of 2000 has to be made so as to determine the age of the appellant. In support of the submission, learned counsel relied on the appellant’s school leaving certificate dated 2nd December, 2009.
4.In view of the said claim, while issuing notice to the State, a Registrar of this Court was directed to make an inquiry and determine the age of the appellant on the date of commission of the offences. Pursuant to the said order, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court has conducted a detailed inquiry by recording the statements of the Principal and other office bearers of three schools where the appellant had studied and has reported that as on the date when the offences were committed, i.e., 25th August, 1991, the appellant was of the age of 16 years, 9 months and 8 days. The matter has now been placed before us along with the report.
5.We have heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the State.
6.The question for determination is whether or not the appellant, who was admittedly not a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short “the 1986 Act”) when the offences were committed but had not completed 18 years of age on that date, will be governed by the Act of 2000 and be declared as a juvenile in relation to the offences alleged to have been committed by him?
7.Before adverting to the question, we may note that the issue with regard to the date, relevant for determining the applicability of either of the two Acts, insofar as the age of the accused, who claims to be a juvenile/child, is concerned, is no longer res integra. On account of divergence of views on the point in Umesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan,1 (1982) 2 SCC 202. and Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar,2 (2000) 5 SCC 488. the matter was referred to the Constitution Bench in Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.3 (2005) 3 SCC 551. Affirming the view taken by a Bench of three Judges in Umesh Chandra’s case (supra), the Constitution Bench held that the relevant date for determining the age of the accused, who claims to be a juvenile/child, would be the date on which the offence has been committed and not the date when he is produced before the authority or in the court.
8.In the same judgment, the Bench also dealt with the question as to whether the Act of 2000 will be applicable in a case where proceedings were initiated under the 1986 Act and were pending when the Act of 2000 was enacted with effect from 1st April, 2001. Taking into consideration the provisions of Sections 3 and 20 along with the definition of “juvenile” in Section 2(k) of the Act of 2000, as contrasted with the definition of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
