FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The informant, Dipankar Banerjee who resided in the same building as where the incident took place noticed a groaning sound and a cry for help coming from the inside of the flat of the deceased Subal Barui. The informant immediately reported the matter to Dum Dum Police Station and the police arrived there. The police found Sajul Barui, his wife and his elder son to be dead while the younger son (one of the appellants’) of the deceased was lying tied with a rope on a chair. On being enquired, Sajul reported that 7 unknown miscreants had entered their flat the previous evening that strangled his family to death.
2. This case is a criminal appeal against the order of the learned additional sessions judge who passed a judgment convicting all the 3 appellants under Sections 302/34 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2 out of 3 appellants namely, Sajul Barui and Ranjit Mondal were also sentenced to death.
3. The conviction was challenged in 5 separate appeals. Also, the proceeding for confirmation of death sentence was submitted before the Calcutta High Court. The appeals as well as the death confirmation proceeding was set aside on the ground that their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not in accordance with law.
4. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial from the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and conclude the trial.
ISSUES
ISSUE 1: Whether the appellants should be treated as juveniles in conflict of law and tried as per the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
ISSUE 2: Whether the sentence of conviction of the appellants should be set aside.
RULES
1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
4. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
5. Juvenile Justice Act, 1986
6. Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007
ANALYSIS
“Juvenile in conflict with law” means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence. Also, Section 2(35) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 states that ‘juvenile’ means a child below the age of eighteen years. Unlike the new act, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 defined ‘juvenile’ as a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years.
‘A juvenile who has not completed eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence is entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, as if the provisions of Section 2(k) had always been in existence even during the operation of the 1986 Act.’ The relevant date of the applicability of the act is the date of occurrence of the alleged incident and not the date of trial. Therefore, a juvenile, i.e., a person who was below the age of 18 years when he committed the offence must be tried according to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.
However, another challenge faced by the Courts is the determination of the age of the person claiming to be a juvenile. Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 addresses this issue. However, a Court can only make an inquiry under the Juvenile Justice Act and not an investigation. By virtue of Section 7A of the Act read with Rule 12, the Court must seek evidence such as matriculation or equivalent certificates, birth certificate etc.
According to the facts of the case, the Trial Court had come to a definite conclusion that on the date of the alleged incident the appellants were below the age of 18 years. Therefore, they must be held ‘juvenile in conflict with law’ in terms of Section 2(l) of the 2000 Act and be dealt with according to the provisions of the said statute. The Trial Court concluded this after looking at the evidence produced by the prosecution.
However, this case shows a series of events that occurred over the period of time when the 1986 Act got repealed and the 2000 Act came into picture. Therefore, in order to address the present case fairly we must focus our attention on Section 20 of the 2000 Act. Section 20 states that:
1. On the date of the commencement of the 2000 Act, the proceedings involving a juvenile shall continue in the same court where it was taking place originally,
2. If the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding,
3. Instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, the juvenile shall be forwarded to the Board, which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Section 20 clarifies the position of pending cases in any court in respect of a juvenile pending on 1st April 2001, where a juvenile, who was below 18 years at the time of commission of the offence, was involved. Further, ‘Section 20 enables the Court to consider and determine the juvenility of a person even after conviction by the regular Court and also empowers the Court to set aside the sentence imposed and forward the case to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned for passing sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.’ In order to suit the facts of this case, it must be stated that Section 20 includes not only trials but even subsequent proceedings by way of revision or appeal.
However, initially, with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, Section 2(k) was given prospective effect. ‘Subsequently, after the decision in Pratap Singh’s case, Section 7A (stating the procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court) was introduced in the 2000 Act and Section 20 thereof was amended whereas Rule 12 (stating the procedure to be followed in determination of age) was included in the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, which gave retrospective effect to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.’
The appellants have challenged the conviction solely on the ground that the conviction suffered from serious infirmities of both fact and law. As stated above, the Trial Court had already established that the accused namely, Sajal Barui and Debasish, were of 16 and 17 years respectively. Also, the third appellant was also below the age of 18 years.
As a result, the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants was set aside by the High Court of Calcutta.
Conclusion
Ratio Decidendi: Regular Court is entitled and empowered to consider and determine juvenility of person even after conviction.
Courts have the authority and power to make an inquiry and take necessary steps to record evidence to determine the age of the accused. Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007; together confers a power with a wide scope on the Courts in order to ensure that the juvenile accused is given the benefit of the legislation. However, this power has to be exercised with care, caution and due application of mind as it can be misused by certain people in order to escape the clutches of the law.
However, law is made for the benefit of the society, therefore, it gives liberty to the parties to raise their plea of juvenility at any stage of the proceedings. In order to support the claim of juvenility, the accused must produce certain documents such as the matriculation certificate or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended or any birth certificate issued by a Corporation. However, in a case where the accused has failed to produce any of the documents mentioned above, medical opinion from the medical board can be called for.
As a recent development, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been passed by Parliament of India. It aims to replace the existing Indian juvenile delinquency law, i.e., the Act, 2000. The new act came into force from January 15, 2016. It is an aftermath of the Nirbhaya gang rape incident that happened in New Delhi. Under the new act, juveniles belonging to the 16-18 age group shall be treated and punished as adults and tried under Indian Criminal Law depending on the degree of heinous crime committed.