Supreme Court: Exercising its criminal appellate jurisdiction, the full bench of B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath* and Sanjay Karol, J.J., stated that the object under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (‘J.J. Act, 2015’) was to deal with the rights and liberties of the juvenile and to ensure that he or she, in conflict with law, could be brought into the mainstream by awarding lesser sentence, thus, modified the impugned judgement and upheld the conviction of the appellant, however, set aside the death sentence, directing his release forthwith.
In the matter at hand, the appellant challenged the order passed by the division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court which affirmed the death sentence awarded by the Trial Court against the appellant charged with offences under Section 363, 376(2)(i), 302 and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’).
The appellant had claimed juvenility and the benefits available under the provisions of the J.J. Act, 2015 and stated that the sentence awarded under Section 9 (2) of the J.J. Act, 2015 cannot be given affect to. Further he had already undergone incarceration of more than 5 years whereas under section 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015, a juvenile below 16 years, even if convicted for a heinous offence, can be awarded 3 years stay in a special home.
The Bench considered the report and material evidence led before the Trial Court as well as the oral evidence of the present and the retired headmaster, five teachers and the guardian of the appellant and affirmed the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court stating the appellant was aged 15 years, 4 months and 20 days on the date of the incident.
The bench navigated through Section 9 of the J.J. Act, 2015 which stated that the law provides full coverage to a person who was established to be a child on the date of the offence, to avail the benefits under the J.J. Act, 2015 even after the case has been decided or the person has attained majority. Further, sub-section (3) provided that if it was found in the inquiry that such a person was a child on the date of commission of such offence then the Court was required to forward the child to the Juvenile Justice Board (‘JJB’) for passing appropriate orders and further, if any, sentence has been imposed by the Court, the same shall be deemed to have no effect. In view of the same, the sentence imposed in the present case should be made ineffective.
The Bench referred to Section 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015 and stated that the punishment provided with could not exceed a period of 3 years and the JJB had to take full care of ensuring the best facilities that could be provided to the child for providing reformative services including education, skill development, counselling and psychiatric support. However, the appellant had already undergone 5 years of incarceration which was illegal, and was thus, liable to be released forthwith.
Issue
• Whether once an accused after conviction at the stage of appeal is held to be a juvenile/child under the provisions of the J.J. Act, 2015 what would be the status of the trial, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court and the appellate Courts?
• Whether the trial itself would stand vitiated for lack of jurisdiction by the regular Sessions Court and it would be the JJB alone which could make an inquiry into the offence committed based upon the evidence led by the prosecution?
• If the inquiry has not been conducted by the JJB, then whether the entire proceedings need to be quashed or only the sentencing aspect would require consideration in accordance with the J.J. Act, 2015?
The Bench relied upon series of judgements related to the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (‘J.J. Act, 2000’) on the said issue wherein some set aside the conviction, sentence and terminated the proceedings whereas others had upheld the conviction but on the basis of sentence already undergone being more than the maximum permissible under the J.J. Act, 2000 were directed for release of the accused and third, where after maintaining the conviction, Courts referred the matter to the JJB for passing appropriate orders on sentence. The Bench, however, noted that the present case fell under the J.J. Act, 2015 as the offence committed in the year 2017.
The Bench perused Section 9(3) of the J.J. Act 2015 which stated that the conviction recorded by any Court with respect to a person who subsequently after the disposal of the case was found to be a juvenile, would not also lose its effect, rather it would only be the sentence, if any, passed by the Court be deemed to have no effect.
The Court noted that the intention of the legislature was to give benefit to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of the offence only with respect to its sentence part. If the conviction was also to be made ineffective then the jurisdiction of regular Sessions Court would completely be excluded. Further, a finding would have been recorded that the person who is found to be a child, his/her pending trial should be relegated to JJB and the already conducted trial be held as null and void. Instead, Section 25 of the J.J. Act, 2015 clearly states that any proceeding pending before any Board or Court on the date of commencement of the J.J. Act, 2015 be continued in that Board or Court as if this Act had not been enacted.
The Bench relying upon Section 5 of the J.J. Act, 2015 and Section 7A of the J.J. Act, 2000, opined that the merits of the conviction could be tested but the conviction cannot be vitiated merely because the inquiry was not conducted by JJB. Further, any sentence in excess of what is permissible will have to be amended as per the provisions of the J.J. Act, 2015.
The Court was of the view that the object under the J.J. Act, 2015 was to deal with the rights and liberties of the juvenile and to ensure that he or she could be brought into the main stream by awarding lesser sentence.
The Bench while modifying the impugned judgement, therefore, upheld the conviction of the appellant, however, set aside the sentence, directing his release forthwith.
[Karan v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 217, decided on 03-03-2023]
Judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: Rajat Mittal;
For the respondent: Sunny Choudhary.
