SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 374

2010 (3) Supreme 662
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Mohan Mali & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of M.P. — Respondent
Crl.M.P. No.6426 of 2010
in
Criminal Appeal No.1305 of 2009
Decided on : 28-04-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 7A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000allows a claim of juvenility to be raised before any Court at any stage even after final disposal of the case.

Headnote:Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- Section 7A read with Section 64- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Rules, 2007- Rule 98 -Conviction of appellant 2 a juvenile along with other co accused persons under Sections 302/34, 326/34 and 324/34 IPC - Appellant 2 was sentenced to life imprisonment, out of which he had already undergone about 9 years of sentence.- Challenge thereagainst-Plea that Appellant No.2, although a minor,within the meaning of the 2000 Act, had not only been tried along with other co-accused, who were not juveniles, in violation of Section 18 of 2000 Act, but had also undergone 9 years of imprisonment, despite a maximum sentence of three years which could have been imposed on him under Section 15 of the 2000 Act-Held evidence on record that appellant 2 though a juvenile, had already been tried along with adults and had been convicted under Sections 302/34, 326/34 and 324/34 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment, out of which he had already undergone about 9 years of sentence- Rule 98 of the 2007 Rules, squarely applied to Appellant No.2’s case- His case was to be considered not only for grant of bail, but also for release in terms of said Rule, since he had completed more than maximum period of sentence as provided under Section 15 of the 2000 Act-Having regard to the fact that Appellant No.2, was a minor on the date of commission of offence, and had already undergone more than the maximum sentence provided under Section 15 of the 2000 Act, by applying provisions of Rule 98 of the 2007 Rules read with Sections 15 and 64 of the 2000 Act, appeal allowed as far as he was concerned and direction given that he be released forthwith- Bail application filed on his behalf was also disposed off, accordingly. (Paras 7 to 10)

       Facts of the Case :

       Appellant 2 a juvenile along with other co accused persons was convicted herein in the instant case under Sections 302/34, 326/34 and 324/34 IPC . Appellant 2 was sentenced to life imprisonment, out of which he had already undergone about 9 years of sentence. It was contended in the instant case that Appellant No.2, although a minor,within the meaning of the 2000 Act, had not only been tried along with other co-accused, who were not juveniles, in violation of Section 18 of 2000 Act, but had also undergone 9 years of imprisonment, despite a maximum sentence of three years which could have been imposed on him under Section 15 of the 2000 Act.

       Findings of the Court :

       Evidence on record showed that appellant 2 though a juvenile, had already been tried along with adults and had been convicted under Sections 302/34, 326/34 and 324/34 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment, out of which he had already undergone about 9 years of sentence. Rule 98 of the 2007 Rules, squarely applied to Appellant No.2’s case. His case was to be considered not only for grant of bail, but also for release in terms of said Rule, since he had completed more than maximum period of sentence as provided under Section 15 of the 2000 Act.Having regard to the fact that Appellant No.2, was a minor on the date of commission of offence, and had already undergone more than the maximum sentence provided under Section 15 of the 2000 Act, by applying provisions of Rule 98 of the 2007 Rules read with Sections 15 and 64 of the 2000 Act, appeal was allowed as far as he was concerned and direction given that he be released forthwith. Bail application filed on his behalf was also disposed of, accordingly.

ORDER

Altamas Kabir, J. —

1.This Appeal, which arises out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6276 of 2007, is directed against the judgment and order of the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.898 of 1997, challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Sessions Trial No.366 of 1994. By virtue of the said judgment, the Appellants, along with two other co-accused, were convicted under Sections 302/34, 326/34 and 324/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 326/34 IPC and one year’s rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 324/34 IPC along with further sentence in default of payment of fine. It may be mentioned that the Special Leave Petition filed by one of the other co-accused, Bhagwan, being S.L.P.(Crl.) No.540 of 2008, was rejected on 16th April, 2008, when notice was issued on S.L.P.(Crl.) No.6276 of 2007.

2.On 17th July, 2009, when the Special Leave Petition came up for admission, leave was granted and the hearing of the appeal was expedited. However, the Appellants’ prayer for bail was rejected at that stage. When the matter was being heard for grant of leave, a plea of juvenility was made on behalf of Appellant No.2, Dhanna Lal, and this Court observed that in the event Dhanna Lal was able to provide proof of his claim that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident, he would be at liberty to apply afresh for grant of bail with such supporting evidence. Pursuant thereto, a fresh bail application was filed on behalf of Dhanna Lal on 27th January, 2010, annexing a copy of the Birth Certificate of Dhanna Lal issued by the Chief Registrar (Birth and Death), Municipal Corporation, Dhar, under Section 12 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969, maintained by the Corporation. From the said certificate it appears that Dhanna Lal’s date of birth was recorded as 12th November, 1976 and was registered on 17th November, 1976, making it a document which was contemporaneous with his birth. Upon due verification, it was confirmed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh that the Appellant No.2, Dhanna Lal, was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. Appearing for the State, Mr. Pramod Swarup, Senior Advocate, very fairly submitted that Dhanna Lal was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of Section 7A read with Section 64 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2000 Act’.

3.Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellants, submitted that the Appellant No.2, Dhanna Lal, although a minor, within the meaning of the 2000 Act, had not only been tried along with other co-accused, who were not juveniles, in violation of Section 18 of the 2000 Act, but had also undergone 9 years of imprisonment, despite a maximum sentence of three years which could have been imposed on him under Section 15 of the 2000 Act.

4.Among other questions, this question also fell for determination of this Court in the case of Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.1 [(2009) 13 SCC 211]. This Court while considering the various provisions of the 2000 Act, as amended in 2006, and, in particular, Section 7A which was introduced in the parent Act by the amending Act of 2006, held that Section 7A would have to be read in tandem with Section 20 of the 2000 Act and Rule 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2007 Rules’, which deal with disposed of cases of juveniles in conflict with law. Since all the three provisions are of relevance to this Appeal, the same are being separately dealt with hereinbelow.

5.Section 7A of the 2000 Act, which provides the procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any C



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top