Juvenile Who Attained Majority During Appeal Cannot be Sent to Special Home; Sentence Reduced to Time Served: Punjab & Haryana High Court - 2025-10-01

High Court Reduces Sentence for Offender Who Attained Majority, Citing Reformative Principles of Juvenile Justice

CHANDIGARH – In a significant ruling emphasizing the reformative rather than punitive objective of juvenile justice, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has modified the sentence of a young man convicted under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the POCSO Act. The Court held that an individual who was a juvenile at the time of the offense but attained majority during the legal proceedings cannot be sent to a special home.

The bench, presided over by Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill, reduced the petitioner's 20-year term in a special home to the period already served—approximately one year and one month.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR lodged on May 2, 2019. The complainant, the victim's mother, alleged that the petitioner, then a juvenile, had sexually assaulted her 14-year-old son. The petitioner was subsequently tried by the Juvenile Justice Board in Faridkot.

On August 9, 2019, the Board found the petitioner guilty under Section 377 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was directed to be housed in a special home for 20 years. This decision was later upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, on October 8, 2019, prompting the current revision petition before the High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

The petitioner's counsel argued that the lower courts had erred in their judgment, contending that key ingredients of the alleged offenses were not established. It was further submitted that the petitioner had already undergone custody for over a year, had no other criminal history, and deserved leniency.

The State counsel defended the concurrent findings of the lower courts, asserting that the conviction was based on a well-reasoned appreciation of the evidence and that the petitioner was not entitled to any leniency.

Court's Emphasis on Reformative Justice

Justice Gill's analysis pivoted on the core principles of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court observed that since the petitioner was a juvenile when the crime was committed, the sentencing must align with the Act's reformative framework.

A critical issue was that the petitioner had since attained the age of majority. The High Court reasoned that sending him to a special home at this stage would be legally untenable and counterproductive to the goal of rehabilitation. The judgment underscored that the primary aim of juvenile law is to provide opportunities for reformation, enabling the individual to become a law-abiding citizen.

The Court cited several Supreme Court precedents, including Pradeep Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Mumtaz vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh , which established that when an accused who was a juvenile attains majority during the pendency of their appeal, their sentence should often be reduced to the period already served.

The Final Verdict

After reviewing the facts, legal provisions, and precedents, the High Court concluded that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence. While upholding the petitioner's conviction, the Court modified the order on the quantum of sentence.

Justice Gill stated, "This Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met in case the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him."

The Court directed that the petitioner be released immediately if not required in any other case. This decision highlights the judicial imperative to balance the gravity of an offense with the long-term objective of rehabilitating young offenders, particularly when they transition into adulthood during the course of protracted legal battles.