CAUSE TITLE:
KARAN @ FATIYA v THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
DATE OF ORDER:
MARCH 03, 2023
JUDGE(S):
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
PARTIES:
Appellant: KARAN @ FATIYA
Respondent: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), said that the conviction order by the trial court cannot be said as invalid just because the inquiry was not conducted by the Juvenile Justice board. The court upheld the conviction order however the sentence was set aside and the appellant was released from any judicial custody
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Juvenile Justice (care and protection) act 2015
- Section 94 – states the procedure in presuming and determining the age of the juvenile.
- Section 9 – states the procedural aspect which needs to be followed by the magistrate who is not authorised under the act to determine that the person is a juvenile or an adult at the time of commission of the offence.
- Section 18 – states that under what circumstance an order can be passed against the child who is in conflict with law.
Juvenile Justice (care and protection) act 2000
- Section 25 – states the special provision which is with regards to the pending cases.
BRIEF FACTS:
- The appellant was convicted under section 210, 302 and 363 of Indian Penal Code read along with section 5 and 6 of POCSO Act. For the said conviction order, the appellant filed an appeal to the High Court where it was dismissed.
- Another application was filed by the appellant regarding prevailing of the benefits under section 9 of Juvenile Justice (care and protection) Act 2015 during the pendency of the suit. Accordingly the court required the inquiry report upon the juvenility of the offender by the trial court, where he was found to be 15 years old at the time of offence committed.
- The court focused on analysing the report submitted by the trial court in determining the age. It was noted that there was no objection raised by the state council rather ossification test was requested.
- The report concluded that the age was declared on the oral statements by the people of the government educational institution of the appellant and there was no reason the give false clarification by the public servants. Therefore the age was clarified and the appellant was a juvenile at the time of offence committed and plea of the state council was rejected.
- The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court upholding the Trial court order of death sentence.
QUESTIONS RAISED:
- Whether ossification test would provide the exact age or will it just relate to the finding of the report?
- What is the possible relief the appellant can pray for?
- Whether the offender has served the maximum sentence according to JJ Act 2015?
- What will be status of the trial, regarding the court’s jurisdiction and the conviction order, when the juvenility of the offender is clarified at the stage of appeal?
- Whether the inquiry conducted by the trial court stands valid according to the JJ Act 2015?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- It was argued by the council that the conviction order given by the trial court cannot be awarded according to section 9 of JJ Act 2015 as he was 15 years old on the dated crime.
- It was pointed out that 5 years of imprisonment period was already served by the appellant which was a clear violation of section 18 of the JJ Act 2015.
- It is pointed out that the state council has not challenge the conviction order rather juvenility is questioned and the subsequent benefits under the act of 2015.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The council submitted that as the documents presented before the court were not in accordance with section 94 of JJ Act 2015 therefore the appellant should be going through ossification test for deterring the age.
- It was argued that the any proceeding that was on-going before a Board or Court on the day the 2015 Act went into effect shall be carried on by that Board or Court just like this Act had never been passed, according to section 25 of the 2015 Act.
- It is to be noted that, the conviction's grounds could be examined, and the judgment that was entered cannot be deemed legally void simply because JJB did not perform the investigation.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- Lawmakers intended to help a person who was deemed to be a child on the offense date only with regard to the sentence component of the law.
- Only sentence-related issues would be covered by the 2015 Act's provisions, and any punishment that is longer than what is allowed by that Act would need to be modified in accordance with those provisions.
- The court upheld the conviction but the sentence order is set aside. The appellant should not be provided any juvenile care and should be released form any judicial custody
CONCLUSION
In the above case High court observed that the state council did not object to the reports submitted by the trial court and even there was such cross examination conducted by the council on the witnesses. Therefore it would be unjust to consider the plea of the state council after a clear analysis of inquiry report by the trial court has been done.
It was pointed that ossification test would not provide the exact age rather it will just elaborate the findings of the report. Regarding the birth certificate being the initial evidence and not submitted was due to its no availability, whereby the subsequent documents were produced and they were taken by the court as valid annexures.
The court also applied section 9 of the JJ Act 2015 with respect to the relief granted to the appellant. Section 18 of the Act of 2015 was applied by the court in determining the validity of the awarded sentence. Accordingly the child should be below 16 years in the case of any heinous offence and the maximum punishment which can be awarded is 3 years along with the reformative service.
However Supreme Court made some other observation and said that, if the sentence was also to be rendered ineffectual, either section 9 of the 2015 Act or section 25 of the 2015 Act would have entirely excluded the regular Sessions Court's authority. A prosecution that is still on-going should be transferred to the JJB as well, and the trial would be declared to be invalid.
The 2015 Act's goal regarding a juvenile's rights and freedoms was to guarantee that a juvenile could be reintegrated into society by receiving a lesser punishment. Additionally, this legislation gives guidelines to other facilities for the welfare of minor offenders while they are housed in any of the establishments listed in the 2015 Act.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
