Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
Dhanalakshmi – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
H.C.P. No. 2098 of 2023
Decided On : 06-11-2023
JUVENILE JUSTICE - JUVENILE IN CONFLICT WITH LAW - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Sections 7A, 15, 64 - The court discussed the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, particularly Sections 7A, 15, and 64, which outline the procedures for determining juvenility and the treatment of juveniles in conflict with the law. The court emphasized that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction, and that if a juvenile is found guilty, the sentence must not exceed the maximum period prescribed. The court's decision was influenced by the need to ensure that juveniles are not tried as adults and that their rights are protected under the law.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a juvenile, Dakshinamurthy, who was convicted as an adult for an offence under Section 394 IPC and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. It was later discovered that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence, leading to a habeas corpus petition filed by his family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Dakshinamurthy was indeed a juvenile at the time of the offence and that his continued detention as an adult was illegal. The court noted that he had already served more than four years of imprisonment, which exceeded the maximum period allowed for juveniles under the relevant laws.
Issues: Whether Dakshinamurthy, who was convicted as an adult, should be treated as a juvenile given that he was underage at the time of the offence, and whether his continued detention was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, must be applied, which allows for the claim of juvenility to be raised at any stage. The court concluded that since Dakshinamurthy was a juvenile at the time of the offence, his conviction and sentence as an adult were invalid.
Final Decision: The court ordered the immediate release of Dakshinamurthy, stating that his continued detention was unlawful and that he should not have been tried as an adult.
ORDER :
1. This is an unfortunate case of a juvenile being tried as an adult, and convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment, and later found that he was a juvenile.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are as follows:
(a) The prison inmate who is the son of the petitioner was tried in S.C.No. 181 of 2011.
(b) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti by the judgment dated 14.10.2011 found the prison inmate guilty of the offence under Section 394 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment.
(c) The prison inmate Dakshinamurthy filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A. No. 763 of 2011. This Court, by judgment dated 22.02.2019 confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the prison inmate is serving the sentence and is now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore.
(d) It appears that subsequently it was found that the prison inmate Dakshinamurthy was a juvenile at the time of the commission of offence on 03.07.2009, as he was born on 10.07.1991.
(e) Thereafter, the brother of the prison inmate filed a habeas corpus petition before this Court in H.C.P. No. 2003 of 2019 stating that the prison inmate, who was a juvenile in conflict of law at the time of offence has been erroneously tried as an adult. This Court, after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, passed the following order:
“3. In such view of the matter, instead of keeping this writ petition pending, we direct the respondents to forward the representation made by the petitioner dated 27.08.2019 to the Juvenile Justice Board, Cuddalore. The Juvenile Justice Board, Cuddalore is directed to follow the procedure and take a decision in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
(f) Subsequent to the directions issued by this Court, the Juvenile Justice Board submitted a report to this Court dated 14.10.2019. The relevant portion of the said report sent to this Court reads as follows:
“Hence, the Board conclude and determine that on the date of commission of offence i.e. 03.07.2009 the prisoner N.Dhakshanamoorthy has not completed the age of 18 years and he was at 17 years 11 month 23 days old. The claim of Juvenility for the Convicted Prisoner N.Dhakshanamoorthy, S/o.Natarajan by his brother N.Sivamani S/o.Natarajan, who is the Writ Petitioner in H.C.P.No. 2003/2019 is found genuine and his claim based on school records issued to N.Dhakshanamoorthy is found as a sufficient proof.”
(g) Subsequently, on 07.06.2023, the Juvenile Justice Board sent a report to the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, confirming that the prison inmate was a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence and that he was born on 10.07.1991.
(h) The mother of the convict has now preferred the instant habeas corpus petition stating that the continued detention of her son, in view of the report of the Juvenile Justice Board, is illegal as he is serving sentence imposed on him for more than four years.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that pursuant to the directions of this Court in H.C.P. No. 2003 of 2019, the Juvenile Justice Board conducted an enquiry and found that the prison inmate was born on 10.07.1991 and on the date of commission of the offence, he had not completed 18 years, and that the report of the Juvenile Justice Board was sent to this Court as early as on 24.02.2020.
4. In the light of the above facts, this Court finds that the prison inmate who was convicted for the offence under Section 394 IPC is in custody since 15.07.2019 and is now aged 32 years. He cannot be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, as the Juvenile Justice Board cannot send him to a Juvenile Home for a term exceeding two years. In similar circumstances where the accused after conviction was found to be a juvenile, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra S
AI
The claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, and if a juvenile is found guilty, the sentence must comply with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, ensuring that the maximum period of de....
Criminal Law – Murder – On the basis of the inquiry conducted as per our orders, it is found that appellant was a juvenile as on the date of commission of offence. In such circumstances, as the findi....
The court confirmed that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, impacting sentencing under the Juvenile Justice Act.
(1) Law provides full coverage to a person who is established to be a child on the date of offence, to avail benefits admissible to a child under 2015 Act even if case has been finally decided and al....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case, and the delay in raising the claim cannot be a gr....
(1) Plea of juvenility can be raised before any Court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of case.(2) Rape and disappearance of evidence – Merits of conviction could be....
An individual assessed to be a juvenile at the time of offence must not be tried as an adult, with their age determination being essential for proper legal proceedings.
Juveniles must be tried under juvenile laws, and prison sentences cannot exceed statutory limits for juveniles. The appeal allowed the convict's release.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
