REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

( 1 ) TWO young boys, the appellants Amit Kumar and Ravinder Kumar, with another young boy named Suman are alleged to have murdered Noor Alam @ Shibu, aged 5 years in the night intervening 9th / 10th November, 1999. The trial of accused Suman is being conduced by the Juvenile Court while the appellants Amit kumar and Ravinder Kumar were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge and on the basis of circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, have suffered life sentence for the offences under Sections 302/364/34 IPC. Both the appellants are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years besides fine for the off ence punishable under Section 201 Indian Penal code.

( 2 ) IT is proposed to dispose of both the appeals by this common order in view of the fact that identical questions of fact and law arise in both the appeals.

( 3 ) THE appeals though preferred for setting aside the conviction, during the pendency of the appeals Mr. R. S. Mishra, counsel for the appellant Ravinder kumar and Mr. I. B. S. Thokchom, counsel for the appellant Amit Kumar stated that they did not wish to press the appeals on merits as the appellants were entitled to avail of the beneficial provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000. Subsequently, since there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant Amit Kumar, Mr. R. S. Mishra, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae by this Court to represent the appellant Amit Kumar as well.

( 4 ) IN view of the fact that Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants did not assail the conviction of both the appellants recorded by the learned trial Judge, a narration of the facts is not called for and we, therefore, straightaway proceed to consider the sole contention raised by Mr. Mishra who as indicated above, invokes the beneficial provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to press for the release of the appellants, stating that after the recording of the conviction of the appellants, the learned trial Court gravely erred in sentencing the appellants in the teeth of the statutory provisions of the Act.

( 5 ) THIS being the mainstay of Mr. Mishra's case for the release of the appellants, at the outset, it was deemed expedient by this Court to get an inquiry conducted through the investigating agencies into the aspect of juvenility of the appellants. In the course of the said inquiry, it clearly emerged that the appellant Ravinder Kumar was 16 years and 5 months of age his date of birth being 26. 06. 1983 on the date of the incident, i. e. , on 09. 11. 2001 as verified by the S. H. O. concerned from his school certificate. The appellant amit Kumar was revealed to be 15 years and 10 months of age as per his school transfer certificate, his date of birth being 18. 01. 1984. As per the ossification test, the age of the appellant Amit was stated to be between 18 to 20 years, meaning thereby on the date of the incident he was between 15 years, 8 months and 17 years, 8 months. The outcome of the said inquiry was not challenged by the State and thus the entire matter is being proceeded with on the premise that both the appellants were juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence.

( 6 ) BEFORE we consider the applicability of the statutory provisions of the juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act to the two juveniles in the present case, in our opinion, a recounting of the history of juvenile justice in this country is called for. It is well known that prior to the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (the precursor of the 2000 Act), there was no uniform legislation with regard to juvenile justice in the country since the subject matter of such legislation fell in the State List of the constitution. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice enabled Parliament exercising its powers under Article 253 of the Constitution read w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document