In many cases, young criminals have got away from harsh sentences due to their age. But in other cases, they have been sentenced to many years of incarceration as they were mistaken for adults
Juveniles are often let off by courts despite committing heinous crimes, thanks to the Juvenile Justice Act. In a recent order, the Supreme Court acquitted a woman sentenced to life-imprisonment for murder after it found that she was a juvenile when the offence took place in 2000.
The bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan thereby set aside the concurring finding of the Chhattisgarh High Court and trial court and said that at the time of the offence, the accused was juvenile, and therefore, no punishment could be imposed. The accused was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
And let us not forget the sixth accused in the Nirbhaya case, a juvenile, who was revealed as the most brutal. He was convicted of rape and murder under the Juvenile Justice Act and given a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment in a reform facility.
The issue of juvenility was raised by the appellant before the Supreme Court, which, in 2023, directed the Sessions Court to hold an inquiry into this aspect. Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, then submitted a finding on October 2023, which records that the date of birth of the appellant on the day the offence was committed was 17 years, nine months and 14 days.
The bench noted that apart from other documents, reliance was placed on entries in the school leaving register last attended by the appellant in 1988. Even the primary school result certificate in 1995 had the same date of birth. Therefore, the Court proceeded on the premise that on the date of offence, the appellant was less than 18 years. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, was admittedly not in force when the incident occurred, but the Bench held that the case would be governed by the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 1986.
Under Section 2(h) of the 1986 JJ Act, a juvenile has been defined to mean a boy who has not attained the age of 16 or a girl who has not attained the age of 18.
“Thus, on the date of occurrence of the offence, the appellant was a juvenile. Therefore, the appellant ought to have been dealt with in accordance with Section 21 of the 1986 JJ Act. The maximum action which could have been taken against the appellant was of sending her to a special home. In the case of a girl of sixteen years of age, she could have been sent to a special home for a period of not less than three years,” the Bench observed.
As per Section 22(1) of the 1986 JJ Act, there was a prohibition on sentencing a juvenile. There is a similar provision under Section 16 of the 2000 JJ Act. “As the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of more than eight years, no purpose will be served by sending the appellant before the Juvenile Justice Board,” the Bench noted while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
Recently, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan acquitted a man convicted of murder, after considering his juvenile status at the time of the crime. “In terms of Section 15(g) of the 2000 Act, the most stringent order that could have been passed against the appellant by the Juvenile Justice Board was of directing of him to be sent to a special home for a period of three years. The appellant has undergone incarceration for more than 4 years. Therefore, now, it will be unjust to send the case back to the Juvenile Justice Board,” the bench said. The case is of 2012, when the appellant was involved in a criminal incident leading to his conviction by the trial court. The Madras High Court upheld the conviction.
In another case in April 2023, the Allahabad High Court, while allowing a petition, said that the gravity of the offence was not a relevant consideration for declining bail to the juvenile.
In October 2020, the Supreme Court had held that the Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Board should decide how much punishment should be given to a 55-year-old man found guilty of murder. The Court said in its judgment that as the person committed the murder in 1981 when he was a minor, the juvenile board should also decide his sentence. The bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna quashed the sentence of the Bahraich court of Uttar Pradesh, which had given life imprisonment to the accused. The Allahabad High Court also upheld that a person above 16 years was not considered a minor under the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986.
However, the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into existence when the hearing of the case was over and when the High Court gave its verdict in 2018. The amended law states that if an accused is below 18 years at the time of the offence, the trial against him will be heard in the Juvenile Justice Court. Justice Sanjiv Khanna held that on the day of the crime, the accused was below 18 years, so he should be given the benefit of the law considering him as a juvenile. No convict can be deprived of the right to receive relief due to him being a juvenile. The accused had pleaded to the Supreme Court for relief in view of him being a minor at the time of the crime in 1981. The Court ordered the district judge of Bahraich to examine the case and give a report.
In the same year, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a special appeal referring to provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and set aside an order passed by a single judge on suppression of information despite specific question as to whether the person had been convicted by any court of law.
In 2019, the Bombay High Court allowed a criminal application filed by a convict, declaring him to be a juvenile at the time of the commission of crime. He was convicted for murder and rape under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was facing death penalty.
In a related development, a bench of Justices BP Dharmadhikari and SK Shinde said that the apex court had already held that the need for a medical opinion arises only in the absence of documents like matriculation certificate, date of birth certificate from the school first attended, other than play school and birth certificates given by any corporation or municipal authority.
The Bombay High Court relied on the apex court’s judgment in Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it was held that “if two views are possible on the age of the juvenile, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in the border line cases”.
—By Shivam Sharma and India Legal Bureau