2013 (4) TMI 945 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of General Court Martial (GCM) over juvenile offences.
2. Validity of joint trial for offences committed before and after attaining majority.
3. Plea of juvenility raised at appellate stage.
4. Application of Army Rules and Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act).

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of GCM over juvenile offences:
The High Court of Delhi set aside the GCM's order, which awarded dismissal from service and 7 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) to the respondent, on the ground that under the JJ Act, the respondent could not be tried by GCM for offences committed when he was a juvenile. The High Court permitted a fresh GCM for offences committed after the respondent attained 18 years of age.

2. Validity of joint trial for offences committed before and after attaining majority:
The respondent was charged under various sections of the Army Act for offences including theft of ammunition and absence without leave. The High Court held that the joint trial of offences committed before and after attaining majority vitiated the GCM proceedings. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not consider the gravity of the charges and whether any prejudice was caused to the respondent. The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial by GCM remained partly valid for offences committed after the respondent turned 18, applying the principle of severability of offences.

3. Plea of juvenility raised at appellate stage:
The respondent did not raise the plea of juvenility during the GCM proceedings but did so in the writ petition before the High Court. The Supreme Court highlighted that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction, and that the date of the commission of the offence is crucial. The Court cited precedents where convictions were maintained but sentences were set aside when juvenility was established.

4. Application of Army Rules and JJ Act:
The Supreme Court referred to relevant Army Rules, emphasizing that the accused must raise jurisdictional objections early. The Court criticized the High Court for not considering these rules and the scope of their application. The Supreme Court also noted that the respondent had pleaded guilty to all charges at a belated stage and that the GCM proceedings complied with procedural requirements. The Court concluded that the High Court should have mitigated the sentence rather than quashing the entire GCM proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the GCM's order of conviction. However, the sentence was reduced to five years, considering the totality of circumstances. The Court emphasized the importance of justice, noting that technicalities should not defeat substantial justice.