- Bench: Justices Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose
- Appellant: Shilpa Mittal
- Respondent: State of NCT Delhi
Issues
- What is the meaning and interpretation of Section 2(33) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?”
- What is the ambiguity created by the word "minimum" in the Statute and how is it interpreted?
- How can a juvenile be treated under a category of an offence, not in the Statue but argued by the appellant as a category to be included as an offence?
Facts
- Juvenile 'X' is alleged to have committed a crime which was considered as a punishable offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- The appellant here is the brother of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident, the juvenile at the time of the incident was above 16 years but less than 18 years. The Juvenile Justice Board held that juvenile 'X' has committed a heinous offence, and, therefore should be tried as an adult.
- The juvenile 'X', through his mother, approached the High Court of Delhi, which held that since no minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence in question, the said offence did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- This order of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.
Appellant's Contentions
- The appellant contended that there was one category of offence which was not considered in the Act of 2015 and submitted that heinous crimes would be those offences which provide a "minimum" punishment of 7 years and above.
- It was submitted that the unincluded category would bring in absurdity which the Legislature did not intend to.
- The contention was that there existed a gap in the Act which created ambiguity and hence did not specify anything in the Act. It was also submitted that while defining 'heinous offences' the word 'includes' has been used which would mean that the definition is inclusive and includes things not mentioned in the definition.
- Respondent's Contentions:
- The counsel appearing submitted that the Court was not the position to rewrite the law and added that the Court cannot decipher the intention of the Legislature only on the ground of unincluded category of offences.
- It was submitted that even if the court had to fill the lacuna in the Act, it was not possible in this case.
Judgement
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the issue of ambiguity in the Act needs to be addressed in the Parliament and that the Court was not in a position to alter or add anything.
Relevant Paragraph
Given the above discussion, we dispose of the appeal by answering the question set out in the first part of the judgment in the negative and hold that an offence which does not provide a minimum sentence of 7 years cannot be treated to be a heinous offence. However, in view of what we have held above, the Act does not deal with the 4th category of offences viz., offence where the maximum sentence is more than 7 years imprisonment, but no minimum sentence or a minimum sentence of fewer than 7 years is provided, shall be treated as 'serious offences' within the meaning of the Act and dealt with accordingly till the Parliament takes the call on the matter.
In passing, we may note that in the impugned judgment the name of the Child in Conflict with Law, has been disclosed. This is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 74 of the Act of 2015, and various judgments of the courts. We direct the High Court to correct the judgment and remove the name of the Child in Conflict with Law.
To view / download the original copy of the judgement, click here
