1981 (9) TMI 296 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Haryana Children Act, 1974 to a person under 16 years of age accused of an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
2. Interpretation of Section 5 and Section 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in relation to the Haryana Children Act.
3. Conflict between the provisions of the Haryana Children Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
4. Legislative competence and repugnancy under Article 254(1) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Haryana Children Act, 1974:
The primary question for consideration was whether a person under 16 years of age accused of an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code can benefit from the Haryana Children Act, 1974. The appellant, convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, was under 16 at the time of his first appearance before the Trial Court, thus qualifying as a 'child' under the Act. The appellant argued for the benefit of the Act, while the State contended that offences punishable with death or life imprisonment were not triable under the Act.

2. Interpretation of Section 5 and Section 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:
Section 5 of the Code states that nothing in the Code affects any special or local law unless explicitly stated otherwise. The appellant's counsel argued that this provision left the Haryana Children Act unaffected. Conversely, the State's counsel argued that Section 27 of the Code, which provides that offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment committed by persons under 16 may be tried by specified courts, implied that such serious offences were excluded from the Act's purview.

3. Conflict Between the Provisions of the Haryana Children Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:
The Court examined whether there was a conflict between the Haryana Children Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. It was noted that the Act provides a separate and humane procedure for the trial, conviction, and sentencing of delinquent children, distinct from the procedures under the Code. The Court found that Section 27 of the Code did not explicitly exclude the trial of children under the Haryana Children Act for serious offences. The Act was deemed to have provisions that could coexist with the Code, with their spheres of operation being different.

4. Legislative Competence and Repugnancy Under Article 254(1) of the Constitution:
The Court considered Article 254(1) of the Constitution, which addresses repugnancy between State and Central laws. It was concluded that there was no irreconcilable conflict between the Haryana Children Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. The provisions of the Act were found to be capable of coexistence with those of the Code. The Court held that the Haryana Children Act was not affected by Section 27 of the Code and that the Act's provisions should prevail in the trial of delinquent children for offences punishable with death or life imprisonment.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant were set aside, and the entire trial was quashed. The Court directed that the appellant be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Children Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of treating delinquent children separately to rehabilitate them and prevent their contact with hardened criminals. The Court also noted that the point regarding the applicability of the Act was not raised in the lower courts, which was regrettable.

Appeal allowed.