REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 7526 OF 2015
IN
SPECIAL LEAVLE PETITION (CRL.) NO.1446 OF 2004
Ram Narain … Petitioner
:Versus:
STATE OF U.P. … Respondent
O R D E R
This application has been filed to release the applicant from the prison on
the ground mentioned in the petition that the petitioner-applicant has
already served the sentence for more than 10 years and still is in jail.
The petitioner-applicant was sentenced for life imprisonment for commission
of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for
short). Subsequent thereto he filed an application for declaration of his
juvenility on the date of the incident, before the competent Court of
jurisdiction, under the advice of his counsel, being Application No.259 of
2013. The Juvenile Justice Board vide its order dated 16.11.2013, a copy
whereof is also annexed hereto, arrived at the conclusion that the age of
the applicant on the date of the incident was 15 years 11 months 26 days
only and thereby he was below 18 years at the time of occurring of
incident. Accordingly, by the said order the Juvenile Justice Board
declared him as a juvenile offender. It further appears that before the
Juvenile Justice Board the applicant-petitioner produced a transfer
certificate wherein his date of birth was recorded as December 25, 1960.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-applicant submitted that in
view of the aforesaid fact the petitioner-applicant should be given
exemption under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000. He further drew our attention to the certificate
issued by the Senior Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Agra, certifying
the period he is in jail. The learned counsel appearing in this matter
further submitted that according to the prosecution the petitioner-
applicant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for
committing the murder of one Nathi Lal on 21st December, 1976 at about 6.30
P.M. by causing him gunshot injury. The petitioner-applicant pleaded
juvenility before the Trial Court in his statement recorded under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 28th July, 1978, along with
other grounds in his defence, but he could not produce the transfer
certificate during prosecution being helpless and as a result whereof he
had to suffer the sentence under Section 302 IPC culminating to life
imprisonment. The special leave petition filed by the petitioner-applicant
before this Court was dismissed on 20.08.2004 and the review petition was
also dismissed by this Court by its order dated 13.10.2004.
In these circumstances, the petitioner-applicant had to spend more than 10
years in prison without getting any remedy under the provisions of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. We have heard
the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant. We have also considered
the decisions cited by the learned counsel.
In the case of Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa, 2015 (5) SCALE 634,
wherein the appeal of the accused was allowed granting him the benefit of
the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000, this Court observed:
“The learned counsel for the appellant raises the plea of juvenility under
Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. The
plea can be raised before any Court and at any point of time. We feel that
the stand taken by the counsel is correct and we will look into the present
lis keeping in mind the juvenility of the accused appellant at the time of
commission of the crime. As stated earlier, the age of the accused
appellant was less than 18 years at the time of the incident. It has been
brought to our notice that the appellant has undergone about 8 years in
jail. The appellant falls within the definition of “juvenile” under Section
2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000.
He can raise the plea of juvenility at any time and before any court as per
the mandate of Section 7(a) and has rightly done so. It has been proved
before us, as per the procedure given in the Rule 12 of the Juvenile
Justice Model Rules, 2007, and the age of the accused appellant has been
determined following the correct procedure and there is no doubt regarding
it.
On the question of sentencing, we believe that the accused appellant is to
be released. In the present matter, in addition to the fact that he was a
juvenile at the time of commission of offence, the accused appellant is
entitled to benefit of doubt. Therefore, the conviction order passed by the
High Court is not sustainable in law. Assuming without conceding, that even
if the conviction is upheld, Upendra Pradhan has undergone almost 8 years
of sentence, which is more than the maximum period of three years
prescribed under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000. Thus,
giving him the benefit under the Act, we strike down the decision of the
High Court. This Court has time and again held in a plethora of judgments
on the benefit of the Act of 2000 and on the question of sentencing.”
We have also noticed that in Ajay Kumar v State of M.P., (2010) 15 SCC 83,
this Court observed as follows:
“In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the maximum period for which a
juvenile could be kept in a special home is for three years. In the instant
case, we are informed that the appellant who is proved to be a juvenile has
undergone detention for a period of about approximately 14 years. In that
view of the matter, since the appellant herein was a minor on the date of
commission of the offence and has already undergone more than the maximum
period of detention as provided for under section 15 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, by following the provisions of Rule 98 of Juvenile Justice
Rules, 2007 read with Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, we allow the
appeal with a direction that the appellant be released forthwith.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
The same view was followed in Hakim v. State, (2014) 13 SCC 427, and Lakhan
Lal v. State of Bihar, (2011) 2 SCC 251.
Hence, we think that the petitioner-applicant should get the benefit under
the said Act since he was a juvenile on the date of commission of the
offence. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Trial Court as also the High Court are set
aside. The petitioner-applicant is directed to be released forthwith.
….....….……………………J
(Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
….....…..…………………..J
(R.K. Agrawal)
New Delhi;
August 07, 2015.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 7526 OF 2015
IN
SPECIAL LEAVLE PETITION (CRL.) NO.1446 OF 2004
Ram Narain … Petitioner
:Versus:
STATE OF U.P. … Respondent
O R D E R
This application has been filed to release the applicant from the prison on
the ground mentioned in the petition that the petitioner-applicant has
already served the sentence for more than 10 years and still is in jail.
The petitioner-applicant was sentenced for life imprisonment for commission
of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for
short). Subsequent thereto he filed an application for declaration of his
juvenility on the date of the incident, before the competent Court of
jurisdiction, under the advice of his counsel, being Application No.259 of
2013. The Juvenile Justice Board vide its order dated 16.11.2013, a copy
whereof is also annexed hereto, arrived at the conclusion that the age of
the applicant on the date of the incident was 15 years 11 months 26 days
only and thereby he was below 18 years at the time of occurring of
incident. Accordingly, by the said order the Juvenile Justice Board
declared him as a juvenile offender. It further appears that before the
Juvenile Justice Board the applicant-petitioner produced a transfer
certificate wherein his date of birth was recorded as December 25, 1960.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-applicant submitted that in
view of the aforesaid fact the petitioner-applicant should be given
exemption under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000. He further drew our attention to the certificate
issued by the Senior Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Agra, certifying
the period he is in jail. The learned counsel appearing in this matter
further submitted that according to the prosecution the petitioner-
applicant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for
committing the murder of one Nathi Lal on 21st December, 1976 at about 6.30
P.M. by causing him gunshot injury. The petitioner-applicant pleaded
juvenility before the Trial Court in his statement recorded under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 28th July, 1978, along with
other grounds in his defence, but he could not produce the transfer
certificate during prosecution being helpless and as a result whereof he
had to suffer the sentence under Section 302 IPC culminating to life
imprisonment. The special leave petition filed by the petitioner-applicant
before this Court was dismissed on 20.08.2004 and the review petition was
also dismissed by this Court by its order dated 13.10.2004.
In these circumstances, the petitioner-applicant had to spend more than 10
years in prison without getting any remedy under the provisions of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. We have heard
the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant. We have also considered
the decisions cited by the learned counsel.
In the case of Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa, 2015 (5) SCALE 634,
wherein the appeal of the accused was allowed granting him the benefit of
the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000, this Court observed:
“The learned counsel for the appellant raises the plea of juvenility under
Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. The
plea can be raised before any Court and at any point of time. We feel that
the stand taken by the counsel is correct and we will look into the present
lis keeping in mind the juvenility of the accused appellant at the time of
commission of the crime. As stated earlier, the age of the accused
appellant was less than 18 years at the time of the incident. It has been
brought to our notice that the appellant has undergone about 8 years in
jail. The appellant falls within the definition of “juvenile” under Section
2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000.
He can raise the plea of juvenility at any time and before any court as per
the mandate of Section 7(a) and has rightly done so. It has been proved
before us, as per the procedure given in the Rule 12 of the Juvenile
Justice Model Rules, 2007, and the age of the accused appellant has been
determined following the correct procedure and there is no doubt regarding
it.
On the question of sentencing, we believe that the accused appellant is to
be released. In the present matter, in addition to the fact that he was a
juvenile at the time of commission of offence, the accused appellant is
entitled to benefit of doubt. Therefore, the conviction order passed by the
High Court is not sustainable in law. Assuming without conceding, that even
if the conviction is upheld, Upendra Pradhan has undergone almost 8 years
of sentence, which is more than the maximum period of three years
prescribed under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000. Thus,
giving him the benefit under the Act, we strike down the decision of the
High Court. This Court has time and again held in a plethora of judgments
on the benefit of the Act of 2000 and on the question of sentencing.”
We have also noticed that in Ajay Kumar v State of M.P., (2010) 15 SCC 83,
this Court observed as follows:
“In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the maximum period for which a
juvenile could be kept in a special home is for three years. In the instant
case, we are informed that the appellant who is proved to be a juvenile has
undergone detention for a period of about approximately 14 years. In that
view of the matter, since the appellant herein was a minor on the date of
commission of the offence and has already undergone more than the maximum
period of detention as provided for under section 15 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, by following the provisions of Rule 98 of Juvenile Justice
Rules, 2007 read with Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, we allow the
appeal with a direction that the appellant be released forthwith.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
The same view was followed in Hakim v. State, (2014) 13 SCC 427, and Lakhan
Lal v. State of Bihar, (2011) 2 SCC 251.
Hence, we think that the petitioner-applicant should get the benefit under
the said Act since he was a juvenile on the date of commission of the
offence. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Trial Court as also the High Court are set
aside. The petitioner-applicant is directed to be released forthwith.
….....….……………………J
(Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
….....…..…………………..J
(R.K. Agrawal)
New Delhi;
August 07, 2015.
