Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
M. Murugan – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
H.C.P. No. 2305 of 2023
Decided On : 22-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: C.S. Pillai.
For the Respondent: E. Raj Thilak.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a juvenile's conviction is not vitiated by the absence of a prior claim of juvenility, affecting only the sentencing under juvenile law.

Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Juvenile Justice - Article 226, Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The court upheld the conviction of the appellant, clarifying that the juvenile status affects only sentencing, not the conviction itself.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition claiming he was a minor at the time of the offence for which he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Juvenile Justice Board confirmed his age as 16 years and 9 months at the time of the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was indeed a juvenile at the time of the offence but ruled that the conviction could not be set aside due to the lack of a prior claim of juvenility during the trial.
Issues: Whether the conviction of a juvenile can be set aside if the claim of juvenility was not raised during the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conviction remains valid despite the juvenile status being established post-conviction, as the legislative intent was to modify sentencing, not to invalidate convictions.
Result: The Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.

ORDER :

Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, for a direction to the respondents to produce the body of the detenu namely M. Murugan, aged 32 years, S/o. Mari, No. 12 Telugu Colony, Madhavaram, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu-600060 now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty.

1. The Writ of Habeas Corpus has been instituted to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu namely, M.Murugan, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

2. The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court in S.C.No. 67 of 2012 by the judgment, dated 09.11.2016 and sentenced to life. The convict preferred Crl.A.No. 56 of 2017 and the sentence was confirmed by the High Court vide judgment, dated 20.02.2017. Thereafter, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been instituted on the ground that the petitioner was a minor on the date of offence.

3. This Court sought for a report from the Juvenile Justice Board, Thiruvallur to fix the age of the petitioner/accused. In pursuance of this direction, the Juvenile Justice Board fixed the age of petitioner as 16 years 9 months and 15 days. We have considered the age. In view of the report of the Juvenile Justice Board, this Court considers that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence. This fact was not brought to the Trial Court at the time of conducting the trial. The Trial Court found guilty and convicted and sentenced.

4. In this regard, the legal principles are no more res integra and settled by the three judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Karan alias Fatiya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 5 SCC 504. The Apex Court considered the cases where plea of juvenile has been taken after conviction. However, in the present case, the conviction was confirmed by the High Court in the Criminal Appeal. The relevant portion of the judgment are as under:

“32. It will be pertinent to mention that in this judgment also there is no discussion with regard to the issue as to whether the conviction should be set aside. This judgment also does not lay down any ratio that if with respect to a juvenile a trial has been conducted by a Sessions Court without the accused having claimed juvenility before it, conviction could be set aside as being vitiated in law if subsequently it is held that the accused was a juvenile.

............

34. There is another reason why a trial conducted and conviction recorded by the Sessions Court would not be held to be vitiated in law even though subsequently the person tried has been held to be a child.

35. The intention of the legislature was to give benefit to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of the offence only with respect to its sentence part. If the conviction was also to be made ineffective then either the jurisdiction of regular Sessions Court would have been completely excluded not only under Section 9 of the 2015 Act but also under Section 25 of the 2015 Act, provision would have been made that on a finding being recorded that the person being tried is a child, a pending trial should also be relegated to the JJB and also that such trial would be held to be null and void. Instead, under Section 25 of the 2015 Act, it is clearly provided that any proceeding pending before any Board or court on the date of commencement of the 2015 Act shall be continued in that Board or court as if this Act had not been enacted.

............

37. Having considered the statutory provisions laid down in Section 9 of the 2015 Act and also Section 7-A of the 2000 Act which is identical to Section 9 of the 2015 Act, we are of the view that merits of the conviction could be tested and the conviction which was recorded cannot be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry was not conducted by JJB. It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document