Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: ss. 2(k), 2(I), 7A read with s.20 – Benefit of 2000 Act – Entitlement to – Conviction and sentence of appellant no. 2 for offences u/s. 302/34 IPC by the High Court reversing the order of acquittal by Sessions Judge – Plea of juvenility raised before this Court for the first time by the appellant – On appeal, held: In light of ss. 2(k), 2(I), 7A rw s. 20 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, even though plea of juvenility raised before this Court for the first time – Appellant no. 2 being a juvenile is entitled to raise the plea even in this appeal – Thus, the appellant no.2 was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence and though till date he has already undergone considerable jail sentence partly as an under-trial and partly as a convict, the order passed by the High Court qua appellant no.2 is set aside.
Dismissing the appeal filed by appellant No.1 and allowing the appeal filed by appellant No.2, the Court
HELD: 1.1 So far as appeal filed by appellant No.1-father is concerned, the same stands abated on account of his death. [Para 7][44-B]
1.2 Appellant No.2 was born on 14.06.1980 whereas the date of commission of the offence is 04.01.1998. It is, therefore, an admitted fact that appellant No. 2 was a juvenile (he was below the age of 18 years, i.e., he was 17 years and 5 months) on the date of the commission of the offence. Though this fact was neither brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge and nor the High Court and was brought to the notice of this Court for the first time by appellant No. 2 in this appeal, yet in the light of law laid down by this in Raju’s case, appellant No. 2 is entitled to raise this plea even in this appeal. In light of Sections 2(k), 2(I), 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 claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage before any Court by an accused, including this Court, even after the final disposal of a case, in terms of Section 7A of the 2000 Act. [Paras 8-11][45-E-H; 44-D-G]
1.3 As regards, the issue relating to the genuineness of the date of birth of appellant No. 2, the appellant No.2 had filed his date of birth certificate in the Sessions Court; the prosecution did not object to the correctness of the birth certificate before the Sessions Judge; this Court granted bail to appellant No. 2 on this ground observing therein that since he was juvenile at the time of commission of the offence and was below 18 years, which was not disputed by the respondent-State; and even at the time of hearing of this appeal, counsel for the State did not dispute the date of birth certificate of appellant No.2. In the light of these, it is not necessary to hold any further inquiry. [Para 12, 13] [46-A-C]
1.4 Since appellant No.2 was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence and though till date he has already undergone considerable jail sentence partly as an under-trial and partly as a convict, the impugned order qua appellant no. 2 is set aside. [Para 14][46-D]
Raju v. The State of Haryana 2019 (4) SCALE 398 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.