The court confirmed that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, impacting sentencing under the Juvenile Justice Act.

ORDER :

Jitendra Kumar, J.

The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the Appellants against the impugned order of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2017 and 13.12.2017 respectively passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1995, whereby all the appellants have been found guilty under Sections 307, 148, 149 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years under Sections 307 and 326 each of the Indian Penal Code and 2 years under Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

Plea of Juvenility Taken

2. However, during pendency of this criminal appeal, the Appellant no.8/Subh Narayan Singh, has filed one Interlocutory Application bearing No. 01 of 2022, whereby the appellant no.8 has raised his plea of juvenility for the first time. In support of his application, he has annexed a copy of his Matriculation Certificate, issued by Bihar School Examination Board, along with the application, as per which, his date of birth is 15.06.1975 and accordingly, his age on the date of occurrence i.e. on 01.06.1993 is 17 years 11 months and 15 days. He further submits that for want of knowledge and proper advice, he could not raise his plea of juvenility during the trial before the Trial Court. Hence, he has raised his plea during pendency of this appeal.

3. He further submits that though as per the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, which was in operation on the date of occurrence, juvenility of a boy-Accused is only up to 16^th years of age. But the Act of 1986 was repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as per which, after its amendment in the year 2006, it was operative retrospectively and according to this Act, the Appellant, who was below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence, is entitled to get all the benefits as provided to a juvenile in conflict with the law under the Act of 2000. He further submits that the Act of 2000 has been repealed in the year 2015 but the new Act of 2015 is not operational retrospectively and the application of the Act of 2000 to all the pending cases is protected by the Act of 2015. He further submits that in view of the application of J.J. Act of 2000 to the Appellant, the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Objection by Learned APP for the State

4. However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer of the Appellant submitting that on the date of the alleged occurrence, the appellant was above 16 years of age and as per the J.J. Act, 1986 which was in operation on the date of occurrence, he was not juvenile. He also submits that the definition of juvenility as per J.J. Act, 2000 cannot be applied in case of the Appellant, because the same could not be applied retrospectively.

5. I considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and considered all the material on record.

Legal Provisions

6. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that at the time of the alleged occurrence, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in operation. Hence, the Appellant was governed by the Act of 1986. However, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was repealed by the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 which came into effect from 01.04.2001. However, Section 20 of the Act of 2000, as stands after amendment in 2006, clearly provides for application of the Act of 2000 in all pending cases which were earlier governed by the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986. The application of the Act i