Advocates:
RAUF RAHIMABHIJIT SENGUPTA

Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL

APPEAL

NO.

1193

OF

2006

Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain

…. Appellant

Versus

State of West Bengal

….Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL

APPEAL

NO.

1397

OF

2003

SLP

(Crl.)

NO.

1451

OF

2003

R.P.

(Criminal)

No.

390

OF

2010

IN

SLP(Crl.)

No.

2542

OF

2010

SLP(Crl.)

NO.

8768

OF

2011

SLP(Crl.)

NO.

8855

OF

2011

CRIMINAL

APPEAL

NO.

654

OF

2002

SLP

(Crl.)

No.

616

OF

2012

JUDGMENT

R.M.

Lodha,

J.

Delinquent juveniles need to be dealt with differently from

adults. International covenants and domestic laws in various countries

have prescribed minimum standards for delinquent juveniles and

juveniles in conflict with law. These standards provide what orders

may be passed regarding delinquent juveniles and the orders

that may not be passed against them. This group of matters raises

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

the question of when should a claim of juvenility be recognised and sent

for determination when it is raised for the first time in appeal or before

this Court or raised in trial and appeal but not pressed and then pressed

for the first time before this Court or even raised for the first time after

final disposal of the case.

2.

It so happened that when criminal appeal preferred by

Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain came up for consideration before a

two-Judge Bench (Harjit Singh Bedi and J.M. Panchal, JJ) on

10.11.2009, on behalf of the appellant, a plea of juvenility on the date of

incident was raised. In support of the contention that the appellant was

juvenile on the date of incident and as such he could not have been tried

in a normal criminal court, reliance was placed on a decision of this

Court in Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal¹. On the other hand,

on behalf of the respondent, State of West Bengal, in opposition to that

plea, reliance was placed on a later decision of this Court in Akbar

Sheikh and others v. State of West Bengal². The Bench found that there

was substantial discordance in the approach of the matter on the

question of juvenility in Gopinath Ghosh¹ on the one hand and the two

decisions of this Court in Akbar Sheikh² and Hari Ram v. State of

Rajasthan and Another³. The Bench was of the opinion that as the issue

1 1984 (Supp) SCC 228

2 (2009) 7 SCC 415

3 (2009) 13 SCC 211

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

would arise in a very large number of cases, it was required to be

referred to a larger Bench as the judgment in Akbar Sheikh² and

Gopinath Ghosh¹ had been rendered by co-ordinate Benches of this

Court. This is how these matters have come up before us.

3.

The Parliament felt it necessary that uniform juvenile justice

system should be available throughout the country which should make

adequate provision for dealing with all aspects in the changing social,

cultural and economic situation in the country and there was also need

for larger involvement of informal systems and community based welfare

agencies in the care, protection, treatment, development and

rehabilitation of such juveniles and with these objectives in mind, it

enacted Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short, ‘1986 Act’).

4.

1986 Act was replaced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, ‘2000 Act’). 2000 Act has

been enacted to carry forward the constitutional philosophy engrafted in

Articles 15(3), 39(e) and (f), 45 and 47 of the Constitution and also

incorporate the standards prescribed in the Convention on the Rights of

the Child, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration

of Juvenile Justice, 1985, the United Nations Rules for the Protection of

Juveniles Deprived of their Liber