2020 (10) TMI 1378 - SC - Indian Laws

Plea of juvenility - juvenile as per the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 or not - HELD THAT - This Court at this stage can decide and determine the question of juvenility of Satya Deo, notwithstanding the fact that Satya Deo was not entitled to the benefit of being a juvenile on the date of the offence, under the 1986 Act, and had turned an adult when the 2000 Act was enforced. As Satya Deo was less than 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence on 11.12.1981, he is entitled to be treated as a juvenile and be given benefit as per the 2000 Act. Whether the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act of 2015 (2015 Act) would be applicable as the 2015 Act vide Sub-section (1) to Section 111 repeals the 2000 Act, albeit Sub-section (2) to Section 111 states that notwithstanding this repeal anything done or any action taken under the 2000 Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the 2015 Act. Section 69 'Repeal and saving clause' of the 2000 Act is identical as Sub-section (1) thereof had repealed the 1986 Act and Sub-section (2) provides that notwithstanding such repeal anything done or any action taken under the 1986 Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the 2000 Act. In light of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act read with Section 25 of the 2015 Act, an Accused cannot be denied his right to be treated as a juvenile when he was less than eighteen years of age at the time of commission of the offence, a right which he acquired and has fructified under the 2000 Act, even if the offence was committed prior to enforcement of the 2000 Act on 01.04.2001. In terms of Section 25 of the 2015 Act, 2000 Act would continue to apply and govern the proceedings which were pending when the 2015 Act was enforced. While upholding the conviction of Satya Deo, the sentence of life imprisonment set aside - matter remanded to the jurisdiction of the Board for passing appropriate order/directions Under Section 15 of the 2000 Act including the question of determination and payment of appropriate quantum of fine and the compensation to be awarded to the family of the deceased. The appeal filed by the Satya Deo is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Determination of juvenility of the accused, Satya Deo, under different Juvenile Justice Acts.
2. Application of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and its amendments to pending cases.
3. Application of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to the case.
4. Appropriate sentencing for a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Juvenility:

The case involved the determination of whether Satya Deo was a juvenile at the time of the offence on 11.12.1981. The trial court was directed to conduct an inquiry, which confirmed that Satya Deo was 16 years, 7 months, and 26 days old at the time of the offence. The report relied on various school records and examination gazettes to establish his date of birth as 15.04.1965. Despite the prosecution not leading any evidence and the complainant's heirs not appearing, the date of birth was undisputed and unchallenged.

2. Application of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000:

The 2000 Act defines a "juvenile in conflict with law" as a person under 18 years of age at the time of the offence. The Constitution Bench in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand clarified that the reckoning date for determining juvenility is the date of the offence, not the date of appearance before the court. Section 20 of the 2000 Act, amended in 2006, mandates that all pending cases involving juveniles should continue in the court but, upon finding guilt, the juvenile should be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders. This provision applies even if the accused ceases to be a juvenile before the Act's commencement.

3. Application of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015:

The 2015 Act, which repealed the 2000 Act, includes Section 25, stating that all pending proceedings involving juveniles should continue as if the 2015 Act had not been enacted. This provision ensures that juveniles continue to receive the benefits of the 2000 Act for pending cases. The court affirmed that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act supports this interpretation, ensuring that accrued rights under the 2000 Act are preserved.

4. Appropriate Sentencing for a Juvenile:

The court noted that Satya Deo had already undergone more than 2 years of incarceration. Referring to previous judgments, it was established that while the conviction could be maintained, the sentence should be set aside, and the case should be remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders under Section 15 of the 2000 Act. This includes considering the imposition of fines and compensation to the victim's family.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Satya Deo but set aside the life imprisonment sentence. The case was remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board to pass appropriate orders under the 2000 Act. The jail authorities were directed to produce Satya Deo before the Board within seven days for further proceedings. The appeal was partly allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.