Honble S.K. SHARMA, J.–Since the controversy involved in the instant appeal attracts the provisions contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short `the J.J. Act), we proceed to dispose of the matter finally at the orders stage.

(2). As per the prosecution story, the appellant was indicted in criminal case registered at the police station Beawar on October 12, 1998. He was arrested and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Beawar. Charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 460/34, 459/34, and 324/34 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses and got exhibited 36 documents. In his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence. No defence witness was, however, examined. On hearing the final submissions, the trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-

U/s. 302/34 IPC:, To suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ . In default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.

U/s. 460/34 IPC: , To suffer simple imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ . In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months S.I.

U/s. 458/34 IPC: , To suffer simple imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/ . In default of payment of fine to further undergo two months S.I.

U/s. 324/34 IPC: , To undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ . In default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months S.I.

All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3). Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the appellant sought determination of his age before the trial Judge and although the appellant as found below 18 years of age learned trial Judge in the order dated July 6, 2001 observed that since the appellant was above 16 years of age, he could not be held a `juvenile. According to learned counsel this observation is perse illegal. Per Contra, Mr. M.L. Goyal, P.P. Supported the impugned order.

(4). Having scanned the material on record we find that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) made an inquiry in regard to the age of the appellant and submitted his report according to which the appellant was found 17 years, 10 months and 11 days on the date of incident. Still the learned Judge did not hold that appellant was `juvenile.

(5). Turning on to the scheme of the JJ Act it appears that pursuant to the directions of the Honble Supreme Court in Sheela Barse vs. Union of India (1), the Parliament enacted Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (Act No. 53 of 1986). The said Act was re- drafted and re-enacted as Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which came into existence with effect from April 1, 2001. While enacting the Act the Parliament considered United Nations standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Consideration of Juvenile Justice Act, 1985 (the Beijing Rules), the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles deprived of their liberty (1990) and all other relevant international instruments and conventions on the rights of child held by the General Assembly United Nations on November 20, 1989 which was rectified by the Government of India on December 11, 1992 to achieve the objectives underline therein. The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to Juveniles in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection, by providing for proper care, protection and treatment by catering to their development needs, and by adopting a child friendly approach in in the adjudication and disposition of matters in best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation through various institutions established unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document