The judgment emphasizes the restorative and rehabilitative principles of the Juvenile Justice Act in determining the appropriate disposition for juvenile offenders.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State.

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 20.07.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 20 of 2013 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 14.03.2013 and order of disposition dated 14.03.2013 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur convicting the petitioner under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, has been upheld. The present case arises out of G.R. Case No. 321 of 2009/T.R. No. 06/2013 which was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

Argument on behalf of the petitioner

4. This learned counsel for the petitioner had advanced his arguments on 11.08.2020 and confined his argument on the point of sentence. It was submitted that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of two years eight months and sixteen days out of conviction of three years.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to para 63 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Salil Bali v. Union of India” reported in (2013) 7 SCC 705 and submitted that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the essence of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Rules framed thereunder is restorative not retributive, providing for rehabilitation and reintegration of children in conflict with law into mainstream society.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the present age of the petitioner is 23 years and 7 months and he has already been reintegrated with the society. He submitted that the occurrence relates to the year 2009 and the petitioner has faced the rigorous of the criminal case for a long time. It was submitted that much of the disposition period has already been served by the petitioner, and therefore some sympathetic view may be taken and the disposition of the petitioner be confined to the period already undergone.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also submitted that the learned Juvenile Justice Board while passing the order of disposition under Juvenile Justice Act, though has mentioned about the report of the probation officer, but there is no consideration of the report. He has submitted that the said Board was under legal obligation to consider the report and then pass appropriate order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the matter may be disposed of after considering the probation officer’s report which must be in the records of the case.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of “Salil Bali v. Union of India” reported in (2013) 7 SCC 705, paragraph 63.

Argument on behalf of the opposite party- State

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the offence which has been proved in the present case is a heinous offence and the judgement passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate authority are well reasoned judgements having consistent findings. He submits that under such circumstances, no interference is called for in this revisional jurisdiction. He submits that considering the nature of offence, no lenient view be taken in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner should regret for his acts and should be adequately punished so that such crime is never repeated by him.

Findings of this Court

10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments on the point of order of disposition, but it would be useful to give the essential features of the case at hand in order to appreciate the arguments of the petitioner on the said point.

11. As pe