2022 Supreme(SC) 1168

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
The State Of Jammu & Kashmir (Now U.T. Of Jammu & Kashmir) & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Shubam Sangra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1928 of 2022 (Arising Out Of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 11220 of 2019)
Decided on : 16-11-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Juvenility of accused – Benefit of principle of benevolent legislation attached to Juvenile Justice Act would be extended to only such cases wherein accused is held to be a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence.
(2) Leniency with which juveniles are dealt with in name of goal of reformation is making them more and more emboldened in indulging in such heinous crimes.

Headnote:

(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 7A read with Rule 12(3)(b) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Jammu & Kashmir Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2013 – Sections 8 and 48 – Jammu & Kashmir Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2014 – Rule 74 – Rape and murder of minor girl – Juvenility of accused – If there is a clear and unambiguous case in favour of juvenile accused that he was a minor on the date of incident and documentary evidence at least prima facie establishes the same, he would be entitled to special protection under Juvenile Justice Act – However, when accused commits a heinous and grave crime like the one on hand and thereafter attempts to take statutory shelter under guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording as to whether an accused is a juvenile or not cannot be permitted as courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with object of protecting confidence of a common man in institution entrusted with administration of justice – There are discrepancies in certificates on record disclosing date of birth of respondent – Only in absence of matriculation or equivalent certificates and in absence whereof date of birth certificate from school first attended and in absence whereof birth certificate given by a corporation or a Municipal authority or a Panchayat that Juvenile Justice Board can ask for medical information/Ossification test – Benefit of principle of benevolent legislation attached to Juvenile Justice Act would be extended to only such cases wherein accused is held to be a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence inspiring confidence regarding his minority as benefit of possibilities of two views in regard to age of alleged accused who is involved in grave and serious offence which he is alleged to have committed and gave effect to it in a well-planned manner reflecting his maturity of mind rather than innocence indicating that his plea of juvenility is more in nature of a shield to dodge or dupe arms of law, cannot be allowed to come to his rescue – Impugned order passed by CJM, Kathua and High Court set aside – Respondent accused was not a juvenile at the time of commission of offence and should be tried way other co-accused were tried in accordance with law – Law to take its own course. (Paras 38, 53, 72 and 80)

(B) Interpretation of Statute – Principle of Interpretation – Word ‘may’ when used in a legislation by itself does not connote a directory meaning – If in a particular case, in interests of equity and justice it appears to court that intent of legislature is to convey a statutory duty, then use of word ‘may’ will not prevent court from giving it a mandatory colour. (Para 39)

(C) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94 – Juvenile delinquency – Rising rate of juvenile delinquency in India is a matter of concern and requires immediate attention – There is a school of thought, existing in our country that firmly believes that howsoever heinous crime may be, be it single rape, gang-rape, drug peddling or murder but if accused is a juvenile, he should be dealt with keeping in mind only one thing i.e., goal of reformation – This school of thought believes that goal of reformation is ideal – Manner in which brutal and heinous crimes have been committed over a period of time by juveniles and still continue to be committed, makes us wonder whether Act, 2015 has subserved its object – Leniency with which juveniles are dealt with in name of goal of reformation is making them more and more emboldened in indulging in such heinous crimes – It is for Government to consider whether its enactment of 2015 has proved to be effective or something still needs to be done in the matter before it is too late in the day. (Para 79)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is at the instance of the State of Jammu & Kashmir (now U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir) and is directed against Order passed by High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu dated 11.10.2019 by which High Court rejected Criminal Revision Application No. 27 of 2018 filed by appellant State herein, thereby affirming the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua dated 27.03.2018 holding respondent accused herein to be a juvenile on the date of the commission of alleged offence.

Findings of Court:

Guilt or innocence of respondent accused shall be determined strictly on the basis of evidence that may be led by prosecution and the defence at the time of the trial. All observations made in this judgment are meant only for the purpose of deciding the issue of juvenility.

Result : Appeal allowed.