2019 (2) TMI 2124 - SC - Indian Laws

Juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence on 14.09.2000 - benefits of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 - Whether such report may be given precedence over the contrary view taken by the High Court so that the benefit of the 2000 Act may be given to the Appellant? - HELD THAT - It is by now well-settled as was held in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 13 SCC 211 that in light of Sections 2(k) 2(l) 7A read with Section 20 of the 2000 Act as amended in 2006 a juvenile who had not completed eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence is entitled to the benefit of the 2000 Act. The learned Registrar has duly affirmed the veracity and bona fide nature of the certificates adduced by the schools attended by the Appellant. At the same time since Rule 12(3)(a)(ii) specifically mentions that the certificate showing the date of birth of the person shall be from the school first attended (other than a play school) we find that the certificate issued and school records maintained by the Dayanand Arya Middle School Sohna where the Appellant studied for four years till class V as duly affirmed through the examination of a witness from such school is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Clause (a)(ii) of Rule 12(3). Of course it goes without saying that the certificate issued by the Government Senior Secondary School (Boys) Sohna and the accompanying school records serve to corroborate the veracity of the records furnished by the former school. It would not be out of place to highlight here that the findings in the inquiry report have also not been controverted by the State. Conclusion - It has been conclusively established that the date of birth of the Appellant was 12.07.1984 and as such he was aged 16 years 2 months and 2 days at the time of commission of the offence dated 14.09.2000. In such circumstances we do not have any doubt that the inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) upon the direction of this Court in the instant matter amounts to an inquiry conducted by this Court itself and is conclusive proof of the age of the Appellant as provided in Rule 12(3) of the 2007 Rules. As the Appellant satisfies the requirement of Sections 2(k) and 2(l) of the 2000 Act the said Act is applicable to him in full force in light of Section 7A and Section 20. The order of the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant Under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code is set aside - Appeal allowed.

2019 (7) TMI 2054 - SC

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment were:

Whether the Appellant was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence on 14.09.2000, thereby entitling him to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ("the 2000 Act").
Whether the inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court regarding the Appellant's age should take precedence over the view of the High Court.
The applicability of Section 7A of the 2000 Act and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 ("the 2007 Rules") in determining the Appellant's age.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Determination of Juvenility

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The determination of juvenility is governed by Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7A, and 20 of the 2000 Act, as amended in 2006. The Court referred to precedents such as Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), which establish that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of a case.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that if an accused was a juvenile at the time of the offence, they are entitled to the benefits of the 2000 Act. The Court also highlighted that the claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, per Section 7A.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Appellant presented school certificates indicating his date of birth as 12.07.1984, suggesting he was 16 years old at the time of the offence. The Registrar (Judicial) conducted an inquiry and confirmed the Appellant's age as 16 years, 2 months, and 2 days at the time of the offence.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the provisions of the 2000 Act and the 2007 Rules to the facts, determining that the Appellant was indeed a juvenile at the time of the offence.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court considered the State's argument regarding the High Court's view but found that the inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) was in line with the statutory requirements and thus should be given precedence.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offence and entitled to the benefits of the 2000 Act.

2. Precedence of Inquiry by Registrar (Judicial)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 7A of the 2000 Act and Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules outline the procedure for determining juvenility. The Court cited previous cases where inquiries by the Registrar (Judicial) were accepted.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court reasoned that an inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) upon the direction of the Supreme Court is tantamount to an inquiry by the Court itself.
Key Evidence and Findings: The findings of the Registrar (Judicial) were based on school certificates and corroborated by witnesses and school records, establishing the Appellant's age conclusively.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the Registrar's inquiry adhered to the statutory framework, thus taking precedence over the High Court's view, which lacked a similar inquiry.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court noted the High Court's failure to conduct a proper inquiry under the 2000 Act and the 2007 Rules, thereby giving weight to the Registrar's findings.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Registrar's inquiry should prevail, confirming the Appellant's juvenility.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established: The Court reaffirmed that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage and that an inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) on the Supreme Court's direction is equivalent to an inquiry by the Court.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Appellant was determined to be a juvenile at the time of the offence, and the inquiry by the Registrar (Judicial) was given precedence over the High Court's view.
Verbatim Quotes: "In light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that it has been conclusively established that the date of birth of the Appellant was 12.07.1984 and as such he was aged 16 years, 2 months and 2 days at the time of commission of the offence dated 14.09.2000."
Final Judgment: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's affirmation of the Appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, ordering the Appellant's release as he had already served more time than permissible under the 2000 Act for a juvenile.