Patna High Court: In a Criminal Revision Petition against the order of the Sessions Court dismissing an appeal from the conviction order of the Juvenile Justice Board (‘JJ Board’) under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 read with 35 of the Arms Act 1959, the Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Kumar, J., set aside the order of conviction and sentencing observing that children are the future of the society and the aim of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act), 2000 (‘JJ Act’) is not to punish the juvenile but reform and rehabilitate them.
“Institutionalization of a child or juvenile in conflict with law has been contemplated as a last resort after reasonable inquiry and that too for the minimum possible duration”.
Background
The informant received information about 3 criminals on a motorbike heading to commit a crime. The police team reached the spot and tried to apprehend them while they tried to flee. Two of them, including the petitioner, were arrested while one got away. The petitioner’s search resulted in the recovery of two pistols, one country-made and another from Italy. The First Information Report was registered against the petitioner and the other two accused under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 read with 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The petitioner, being 16 years 8 months, and 20 days as per school certificates, was declared to be a juvenile and the case was transferred to J.J. Board. The J.J. Board found him guilty under all the above-mentioned sections and ordered him to be sent to a Special Home in Patna for 3 years. Aggrieved by this judgment, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of conviction. The petitioner thus filed the instant criminal review petition against the order of conviction and sentence by the Sessions Court.
Analysis
The Court began by pointing out that the entire allegation against the petitioner was dependent on the alleged search and seizure of arms and ammunition from him. However, the Court opined that the said search and seizure were very doubtful. There were discrepancies in the witness statements, and the witness was made to sign on blank paper, and no evidence to show the arms sealed at the spot were the same as those sent for the ballistic test. Further, all the items seized were kept in the same sack and exactly which arms and ammunition were recovered from the petitioner was unclear. The Court opined that since the recovery of arms and ammunition was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner, it would be a travesty of justice to convict him based on such shreds of evidence.
The Court further held that the order of sentence under Section 15 of the JJ Act was not in conformity with the object, spirit, and provisions of the Act. The Court pointed out that, “The J.J. Act, 2000 is based on our belief that children are the future of the society and in case they go into conflict with law under some circumstances, they should be reformed and rehabilitated and not punished. No society can afford to punish its children. Punitive approach towards children in conflict with law would be self-destructive for the society. Such belief and object are reflected in the preamble to the Act as well as its provisions”
The Court laid emphasis upon the Preamble of the JJ Act which states that care and protection are to be provided while adopting a child-friendly approach and disposing of juvenile matters keeping in mind the best interest of the child and promoting their ultimate rehabilitation. The Court perused Sections 15 and 16 of the JJ Act which talks about orders that may be passed regarding juveniles and orders that may not be passed against juveniles respectively. The Court noted that as per the above provisions, if a juvenile is found to be in conflict with the law, then after inquiry they may be released after advise or admonition; sent for group counseling; or awarded community service among other alternatives. Also, if the juvenile is awarded 3 years in a Special home which is the maximum a juvenile may be given, the concerned authority must afford special reasons. The Court also talked about Rule 3 of Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 (JJ Rules), which provides for fundamental principles to be followed while deciding a matter under the J.J. Act. Amongst these principles, the Court laid emphasis on the principle of best interest and institutionalization as a last resort.
The Court noted that before passing any order under the JJ Act, the social investigation report and principles mentioned under the JJ Rules need to be considered. Further, the Court noted that: “…the Board is required not only to find guilt/innocence of the juvenile, but also to investigate the underlying social and familial causes of the offence committed by the juvenile so that the Board/Court may pass appropriate order with intent to reform, rehabilitate and reintegrate the errant juvenile with the mainstream of the society. Punishment of juvenile in conflict with law has never been the purpose of the juvenile justice”. On this point, the Court referred to Salil Bali v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 705.
The Court also referred to the judgment of Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2014) 8 SCC 390, where the Supreme Court had pointed out differences between the Juvenile Justice System and the Criminal Justice System. Here the Court quoted relevant paragraphs that in essence said that the Criminal Justice System is adversarial, emphasizing guilt or innocence and punishment whereas the Juvenile Justice system is child-friendly and aims to reform and rehabilitate the juvenile.
The Court then considered the social investigation report of the juvenile and held that by sentencing the juvenile to 3 years in a special home, the JJ Board and Sessions Court acted against the interest of the juvenile by not providing an appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to continue his studies. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence were held by the Court to be not sustainable in the eyes of the law and set aside.
[Diwakar Singh v. State of Bihar, Criminal Revision no. 359 of 2024, decided on 13-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the respondent: Assistant Public Prosecutor Jai Narain Thakur
