Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Anish Dayal, JJ.
Raju @ Kristo - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 35 of 2005
Decided On : 23-11-2022
A minor convicted under IPC can benefit from juvenile provisions; age determination prioritizes statutory guidelines establishing the right to rehabilitation over traditional sentencing.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 452 and 302 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Age determination, precedents established by Supreme Court regarding juvenility - The appellant, convicted for murder and house trespass, was found to be a minor at the time of the offence, entitled to benefit of juvenility - Conviction maintained, sentence set aside. (Paras 1, 2, 6)
(B) Appeal - A juvenile must be treated according to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, and protective custody is warranted rather than traditional sentencing. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged his conviction for offences punishable under IPC sections, and sought a determination of his age under the Juvenile Justice Act following a Supreme Court ruling, revealing he was a minor at the time of offence.
Findings of Court:
The appellant, who had served over 5 years, was recognized as a minor, and hence, the court set aside the sentence maintaining the conviction.
Issues: Determination of the appellant's age at the time of the alleged offence; whether juvenile benefits apply.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that age determination should follow statutory protocols, highlighting the effective application of the J.J. Act, recognizing the appellant as juvenile, and ensuring rehabilitation over punitive measures.
Result: The appeal is allowed with the sentence set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's conviction details. (Para 1) |
| 2. appellant raises juvenility plea. (Para 2) |
| 3. procedure for age determination outlined. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. age determined; appellant found juvenile. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. no grounds to remand sentence. (Para 7) |
| 6. appeal disposed of; order issued. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J. (Oral)--By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 5th July 2004 convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 452/302 IPC as also the order on sentence dated 9th July 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, directing him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default whereof, simple imprisonment for 1 month for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- in default whereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for offence punishable under Section 452 IPC.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant took the plea of juvenility before this Court and filed an application being Crl.M.A. 36973/2019 under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [in short, the `J.J.Act'] seeking determination of the age of the appellant at the time of alleged offence. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2009) 13 SCC 211, Hari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., held that the benefit of the increase of the age of the juvenility to 18 years introduced by the Act of 2000 will apply retrospectively, it was thus to be determined whether the appellant had completed 18 years of age on the date of alleged commission of offence to avail the benefit of the J.J. Act. Keeping in view the said mandate, this Court remanded the matter to the learned Trial Court exercising the jurisdiction under Section 311 and 391 CrPC read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act to determine the age of the appellant as on 6th November 1999 by resorting to Section 9(2) and Section 94 of the J.J.Act.
3. Section 94(2) of the J.J.Act reads as under:
"94. Presumption and determination of age:
(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining -
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:
Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order".
4. Even as per the provisions of Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the only difference was that the matriculation certificate got precedent over the date of birth certificate from the school (other than play school) first attended. In the present case, since neither the date of birth from the school first attended nor matriculation certificate nor the birth certificate issued by the municipal corporation/authorities is available, the only course opened to ascertain the age was by seeking medical opinion from the duly constituted medical board which has been done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge pursuant to the order dated 11th December 2019 of this Court.
5. Additional evidence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been received in the form of CW1 to CW5 who have also exhibited the ossification test report of the appellant as Ex.CW1/A, as per which, age of the appellant was held to b
