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

2012 Supreme(SC) 719

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. LODHA, ANIL R. DAVE & T.S. THAKUR, JJ.
ABUZAR HOSSAIN @ GULAM HOSSAIN - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1193 of 2006 with Criminal Appeal No. 1397 of 2003, SLP (Crl.) No. 1451 of 2003, R.P. (Criminal) No. 390 of 2010, in Slp (Crl.) No. 2542 of 2010, SLP(Crl.) No. 8768 of 2011, SLP(Crl.) No. 8855 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2002 and SLP (Crl.) No. 616 of 2012
Decided On : 10-10-2012.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage even after final disposal of the case.
Not admitting affidavit in proof of age is not rule of law bur rule of prudence.

Headnote:(a) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 7A r/w Rule 12, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage even after final disposal of the case – For making a claim of juvenility after conviction some material referred to in Rule 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) must be produced to prima facie satisfy the court – An affidavit will not be sufficient – Principles discussed. (Para 36)

       1984 (Supp) SCC 228; (2009) 7 SCC 415; (1989) 3 SCC 1; 1995 Supp (4) SCC 419; (1997) 8 SCC 720; (2009) 15 SCC 259; (2005) 3 SCC 551; (2010) 13 SCC 523; (2011) 2 SCC 224; (2011) 2 SCC 251; (2011) 13 SCC 751 – Relied upon

       1993 (Supp) 1 SCC 409 – Referred

       Per T.S. Thakur, J.

       (b) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12 – Determination of age – Factors for consideration – Physical appearance is first and an important factor in terms of rule 12(2) – Second factor is documentary evidence enumerated in Rule 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) – In absence of these documents rule 12(3)(b) provides for medical examination – Not admitting affidavit is not rule of law but rule of prudence – Directing an enquiry is not same as declaring the accused to be a juvenile – Approach at the stage of directing the enquiry has to be more liberal – Court may insist upon filing of better affidavits, and even direct any additional information considered relevant including information regarding the age of the parents, the age of siblings and the like, to be furnished. (Para 2, 3, 6)

       Facts of the case:

       This group of matters raises the question of when should a claim of juvenility be recognised and sent for determination when it is raised for the first time in appeal or before the Supreme Court or raised in trial and appeal but not pressed and then pressed for the first time before this Court or even raised for the first time after final disposal of the case.

       Finding of the Court:

       Claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage even after final disposal of the case.

       Result: Reference answered in the affirmative.

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J. - Delinquent juveniles need to be dealt with differently from adults. International covenants and domestic laws in various countries have prescribed minimum standards for delinquent juveniles and juveniles in conflict with law. These standards provide what orders may be passed regarding delinquent juveniles and the orders that may not be passed against them. This group of matters raises the question of when should a claim of juvenility be recognised and sent for determination when it is raised for the first time in appeal or before this Court or raised in trial and appeal but not pressed and then pressed for the first time before this Court or even raised for the first time after final disposal of the case.

2. It so happened that when criminal appeal preferred by Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain came up for consideration before a two-Judge Bench (Harjit Singh Bedi and J.M. Panchal, JJ) on 10.11.2009, on behalf of the appellant, a plea of juvenility on the date of incident was raised. In support of the contention that the appellant was juvenile on the date of incident and as such he could not have been tried in a normal criminal court, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [1984 (Supp) SCC 228]. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, State of West Bengal, in opposition to that plea, reliance was placed on a later decision of this Court in Akbar Sheikh and others v. State of West Bengal [(2009) 7 SCC 415]. The Bench found that there was substantial discordance in the approach of the matter on the question of juvenility in Gopinath Ghosh1 on the one hand and the two decisions of this Court in Akbar Sheikh2 and Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Another [(2009) 13 SCC 211]. The Bench was of the opinion that as the issue would arise in a very large number of cases, it was required to be referred to a larger Bench as the judgment in Akbar Sheikh2 and Gopinath Ghosh1 had been rendered by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. This is how these matters have come up before us.

3. The Parliament felt it necessary that uniform juvenile justice system should be available throughout the country which should make adequate provision for dealing with all aspects in the changing social, cultural and economic situation in the country and there was also need for larger involvement of informal systems and community based welfare agencies in the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of such juveniles and with these objectives in mind, it enacted Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short, ‘1986 Act’).

4. 1986 Act was replaced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, ‘2000 Act’). 2000 Act has been enacted to carry forward the constitutional philosophy engrafted in Articles 15(3), 39(e) and (f), 45 and 47 of the Constitution and also incorporate the standards prescribed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985, the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990) and all other relevant international instruments. Clause (k) of Section 2 defines “juvenile” or “child” to mean a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age. Clause (l) of Section 2 defines “juvenile in conflict with law” to mean a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age on the date of commission of such offence.

5. Section 3of 2000 Act provides for continuation of inquiry in respect of juvenile who has ceased to be a juvenile. It reads as under:

“S.3. Continuation of inquiry in respect of juvenile who has ceased to be a juvenile.— Where an inquiry has been initiated against a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection and during the course of such inquiry the juvenile or the child ceases to be such, then, notwithstanding anything contai



































































































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