CASE TITLE:
Suhail Ahmad Vs. State of Haryana
DATE OF ORDER:
14 December, 2021
BENCH:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Suhail Ahmad
Respondent: State of Haryana
SUBJECT
The High Court held that the convicting court may impose life imprisonment on the offending juvenile, in conflict with the law, if the defendant willfully causes or attempts to cause death while committing night trespassing or robbery. Further, the Court said that the simpler offence of night trespassing or night robbery can carry a penalty of less than seven years, but the "offence" can only be considered a "heinous offence" if the sentence imposed on the convicted person is peremptorily statutorily contemplated to be served for seven years or more.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
- Section 2(33) – “heinous offences” for which the minimum punishment is 7 years of imprisonment.
- Section 12 - A child, alleged to have committed an offence, is detained by the police - be released on bail.
Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 201 - Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender
- Section 460 - All persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt caused by one of them.
- Section 120(B) - Punishment of criminal conspiracy - imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards.
- Section 34 - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention - each person is liable in the same manner.
The Arms Act, 1959
- Section 25 - Manufacturing, selling etc. of arms and ammunition - imprisonment for not less than three years which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 173 - Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
FACTS
- An FIR registered at Police Station Quilla Panipat, offences constituted under Sections 201, 302, 34 of IPC, later on changed to under Sections 460, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC, and, under Section 25 of Arms Act.
- The offences are alleged to be committed by Suhail Ahmad and Sameer, both aged around 16 years.
- Both the co-accused were to be tried and inquired by the Children’s Court as constituted under The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) , 2015 Act.
- The offences under the petition are alleged by the prosecution to be “heinous offences” as defined in Section 2(33) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether life imprisonment can be imposed upon juveniles if they willfully attempt or cause death?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The offences in the FIR Petition are alleged by the Prosecution to be “heinous crimes” as defined under Section 2(33) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had boisterously contested by making a keen perusal and studied analysis of the provisions of the afore mentioned Section and the provisions of Sections 15 and 19 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
- The Petitioner argues that the word 'may' preceding sentence upto 10 years, as mentioned in Section 460, leaves a legislative discretion to the convicting Court, to impose a sentence even less than even 7 years. He further insists that the afore made elucidation to Section 2(33) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act), 2015 visibly reflects the fact, that, the punishment applicable, upon the juvenile in conflict with law, drawn under Section 460 of the IPC, is not essentially required to extend for a term which may extend to 7 years, but rather, may even extend for a term less than 7 years.
- The Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further argues that the offence under Section 460 of IPC, does not become a "heinous offence", and further, argues that the instant criminal revision petition be allowed, and, the counter verdicts, as made, upon the petitioner's application be quashed, and, set aside.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent-State has contended before this Court that, the verdicts as, made, upon the petitioner's application cast, under Section 19 of the Act, require theirs becoming validated or upheld by this Court.
- The FIR offences have been fallaciously construed to be "heinous offences", by the Petitioner under Section 19 of the Act
- The petition FIR offence, constituted under Section 460 of IPC, does not become a "heinous offence", and, therefore, the respondent strives to invalidate the impugned verdicts.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
The Court observed that the careful reading of the statutory provisions, as, carried in sub Section (1) of Section 15 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, clarifies that, when:
- The juvenile in conflict with law,
- visibly, at the relevant stage,
- in contravention to the commission of the petition FIR offence(s),
- has completed or is above the age of 16 years, and,
- when it is alleged against him that, he has committed a "heinous offence",
consequently, it becoming obligatory, upon the Board to conduct a preliminary assessment regarding his mental, and, physical ability to commit such offence, his capacity to comprehend the consequences of the offence, and, the conditions in which he allegedly committed the offence. Then, in the making of the above assessment, the Board may proceed to take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers, and, other experts.
After taking into consideration the submission of both the parties, the court noted that the accused have not only committed the simple offence of trespassing at night or house-breaking by night, but also, willingly caused or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to person. Hence, the court observed that a convicting Court shall be authorized to peremptorily impose a sentence of life imprisonment, upon the juvenile in conflict with law.
CONCLUSION
The High Court of Haryana and Punjab, clarified the meaning of "heinous offence" by declaring that it is statutorily described to be one in which, the peremptorily imposable punishment, upon the accused (juvenile) in conflict with law, is imprisonment upto a term extending upto 7 years.
Further, the court noted that the petition offences are to be construed to be "heinous offence", and, the impugned order, and, transfer of the case to the Children's Court, being tried as an adult, is required to be sustained. The court dismissed the instant petition stating that it has no merit and the impugned orders were maintained and upheld
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
