Juvenile Justice
Dipak pritam
(Querist) 13 September 2009
This query is : Resolved
I have query regarding the 'Juvenile Justice and Protection Act', accuse has charge in FIR IPC 302/448/149/148/147/27 ARMS ACT and he is member of mob., Date of birth 15-sep-1987(according to 10th Certificate ) , FIR date is 06-march-2005, Charge sheet submite date 30-jan-2009, Please clearly me that person is eligible for Juvenile., Does he face problem in getting Government jobs or other things those the normal person does. Also that person is suspected in police dairy he was not present time of Spot place,
Dipak singh
dipakibc@gmail.com
riven
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 13 September 2009
Dipak pls verify the date first.
as per dates u ve given, the accused was born after the registration of FIR :-)
an unborn child may have a right in property but criminal liability....na na na na na :-)riven
Dipak pritam
(Querist) 13 September 2009
Date of birth 15-sep-1987(according to 10th Certificate )riven
PARTHA P BORBORA
(Expert) 13 September 2009
AS PER THE DATE OF BIRTH HE HAS COMPLETED 22 YEARS . SO HE IS NOT A JUVENILE.riven
Bhumik Dave
(Expert) 14 September 2009
He has completed 22 years at the time of charge sheet so he is not considered as a juvenile.riven
Dipak pritam
(Querist) 14 September 2009
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 761 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3541 of 2008)
Satish @ Dhanna …Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. …Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench. Stand of the present appellant
was that he was juvenile when the occurrence took place. His date of birth
was 12.11.1980. Various accused persons faced trial for offence punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that since the accused was juvenile, his trial could not have been
held alongwith others. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the
other hand submitted that the question whether the appellant was a juvenile
was never raised earlier.
3. It is to be noted that prior to the date of occurrence the Madhya
Pradesh Children Act, 1928 (in short the ‘Children Act’) was in force. The
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (in short ‘1986 Act’) was in operation on the date
of occurrence. Subsequently, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2000 Act’) has been
enacted. Under section 2(h) of the 1986 Act, a juvenile is one who is below
the age of 16 years. Under the 2000 Act under Section 2(k), a juvenile or
child means a person who has not completed 18 years of age. The fact that
on the date in question, i.e. on the date of occurrence and the date of
production before the Court the appellant had not completed 18 years of age
stands fully established on record. Section 16 of the 2000 Act provides that
no juvenile shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life or
committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing
2
security. Section 20 provides for special provisions in respect of pending
cases. The 2000 Act came into force on 1.4.2001. In Bhola Bhagat v. State
of Bihar (1997 (8) SCC 720) this Court after referring to the decision in
Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1984 Supp SCC 228) and Bhoop
Ram v. State of U.P. (1989 (3) SCC 1) held that an accused who was
juvenile cannot be denied the benefit of provisions of 2000 Act. The course
this Court adopted in Gopinath’s and Bhola Bhagat’s cases (supra) was to
sustain the conviction, but at the same time modify the sentence awarded to
the convict. At this distant point of time to refer the appellant to the Juvenile
Board would not be proper. Therefore, while sustaining the conviction for
the offence for which he has been found guilty, the sentence awarded is
restricted to the period already undergone. The appellant be released from
custody forthwith unless required to be in custody in connection with any
other case. .
4. The appeal is allowed.
………………………………….J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
………………………………….J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
3
New Delhi,
April 17, 2009riven
A. A. JOSE
(Expert) 19 September 2009
Mr.Dipak Pritam has rightly dealt with the issue.riven
