CR.A/303/2001 1/19 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 303 of 2001 With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 487 OF 2001 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI =================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? =================================== BHUPATBHAI NARANBHAI - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Opponent(s) =================================== Appearance : Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2001 MS SADHANA SAGAR for Appellant MR HL JANI, APP, for Opponent Criminal Appeal No.487 of 2001 CR.A/303/2001 2/19 JUDGMENT MR HL JANI, APP for Appellant MS SADHANA SAGAR for Respondent =================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 05/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA) 1.0 The Criminal appeal no.303 of 2001 is at the instance of the original accused against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 31st March 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Junagadh in Atrocity Sessions Case No.89 of 1996, whereby the appellant was convicted for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,50,000/-. Criminal Appeal No.487 of 2001 is at the instance of State against the very same judgement whereby the learned Special Judge, Junagadh had acquitted the appellant-accused in respect of offence punishable under sections 511 of IPC and sections 3(1)(3), CR.A/303/2001 3/19 JUDGMENT 3(1)(10), 3(1)(11) and 3(2)(5) of Atrocities Act. 2.0 Since both the appeals have arisen from the very same judgement and order of the learned Special Judge, we have heard both the appeals together and dispose of the same by this common judgement. 3.0 Before proceeding with the matters a preliminary contention has been raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant-original accused that a contention was raised before the Special Judge, Junagadh regarding the age of the present appellant-accused, which is required to be considered in this appeal. Learned Advocate further submitted that the appellant-accused at the relevant time was below the age of 18 years and therefore he is entitled to the benefit of provisions of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). She has further submitted that she restricts her argument to the point of age of the victim and does not challenge the rest of the finding of the Special Judge. 4.0 In view of the above, what is required to be decided CR.A/303/2001 4/19 JUDGMENT is the age of the appellant-accused at the time of the incident and the applicability of relevant provisions of law and we are not required to go into the other findings of the learned Special Judge, Junagadh. 5.0 We have heard both the learned Advocates at length and perused the impugned judgement, documentary evidence on record, relevant provisions of law and the decisions of the Apex Court. 6.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant-accused has drawn our attention to Exh.23 whereby the prosecution has produced the birth certificate of the appellant- accused and the birth date of the present appellant- accused is stated as 1st June 1978 on the basis of school leaving certificate and therefore he has not completed 18 years as on the date of the incident. It is required to be noted that the aforesaid exhibit has been produced by the learned Advocate for the prosecution with the consent of the learned Advocate for the accused. Therefore there is no dispute about the date mentioned in the aforesaid document. CR.A/303/2001 5/19 JUDGMENT 7.0 From the evidence it also transpires that the accused was sent for ossification test by the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh, dated 30th April 1996 to Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Junagadh. which is evident from the medical record. The appellant accused was examined by Dr. Nikhilkumar Pushkarrai Buch and the certificate of the said doctor is produced at Exh.21 and the doctor opined that at the time of incident the appellant-accused must have been at the age between 16 and 18. This doctor has given this opinion on the basis of the ossification test and therefore no dispute has been raised on behalf of the State on this aspect. The learned Special Judge has also noted this fact in the impugned judgement at para 19 and has come to the conclusion that the age of the appellant-accused must have been between 16 and 18 years. 8.0 In view of the clear evidence on record and especially the finding of the learned Special Judge, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the appellant-accused was at the age between 16 and 18 at the time of the incident in question. Under the CR.A/303/2001 6/19 JUDGMENT circumstances, since the appellant-accused was below 18 years at the time of incident, the provisions of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 are applicable to the facts of the case. 9.0 Therefore we are required to consider the contention that the accused was admittedly aged below 18 years at the time of the incident and therefore in view of change of law the matter should be referred to Juvenile Court or not. In this connection it is advantageous to refer to section 2, subsection [h] of the Junvenile Justice Act, 1986 which reads as under: [h] “Juvenile” means a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years; 9.1 In The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 the relevant provision is subsection [k] which reads as under: [k] “Juvenile” or “child” means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age;” CR.A/303/2001 7/19 JUDGMENT 9.2 At this Stage it is also relevant to note section 2(l) of the 2006 Act which defines “juvenile in conflict” with law as under: “[l] ‘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.” 9.3 The procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court is stipulated under section 7A which reads as under: “7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court: (1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. CR.A/303/2001 8/19 JUDGMENT (2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect.” 9.4 Thus, if a claim of juvenility is raised, the court has to make an inquiry and after determining the age if the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under subsection (1), the court should forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect. 9.5 On the facts of the present case the appellant had raised claim of juvenility before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court has ordered for an inquiry in which it was found that the appellant was of the age of below 18 years. However, it appears that after ascertaining the age of the appellant the Sessions Court has not considered the request of referring the matter to Juvenile Court and proceeded to pass the judgement and order of conviction and sentence. According to us it was just, legal and CR.A/303/2001 9/19 JUDGMENT proper order in view of the prevailing law as the age of juvenile was fixed at 16 years. 9.6 However, it is required to be noted that subsection (l) of section (2) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was amended by section 4 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act). Originally section 2(l) stipulated that “Juvenile in conflict with law” means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence”. This subsection was amended by the Amendment Act stating that “juvenile inflict 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. The Legislature has thought it fit to stipulate that the age of the accused should be taken as on the date of the commission of such offence. Once it is proved that the accused is a juvenile as per the provisions of section 2[l], it is mandatory for the court to forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders. 9.7 Coming to the question as to whether at this stage CR.A/303/2001 10/19 JUDGMENT this Court can consider the question of referring the matter to the Board. In this regard it is relevant to note that by section 14 of the Amendment Act, “Explanation” was inserted to section 20 of the principal Act which reads as under: “Explanation – In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of clause [l] of section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed.” [Emphasis supplied] 9.8 Thus, even in the case of appeal, the determination of juvenility of a juvenile shall be in terms of section 2[l], even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of the said Act and the provisions of the said Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed. CR.A/303/2001 11/19 JUDGMENT 10.0 At this stage we may refer to the decision in the case of Upendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2005(3) SCC 592 (2005 SCC(Cri) 778) held that at that point of time the question of referring the accused to the juvenile Board does not arise and it was held that the conviction sustained and the sentence was quashed. 10.1 In the case of Pratap Singh V. State of Jharkhand and Anr. Reported in AIR 2005 SC 2731 (JT 2005(2) SC 271 =(2005) 3 SCC 551= 2005 SCC (Cri.) 742 = 2005 Cri LJ 3091) it is held that for the determination of age of juvenile, the reckoning date would be the date of the commission of the offence and not the date when the offender is produced before the competent authority or court. It was further held that the 2000 Act would be applicable to those cases initiated and pending trial/inquiry for the offences committed under the 1986 Act provided that the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1.4.2001. It is also required to be noted that the Constitution Bench in this decision has also held that the provision of the 2000 Act is furthermore a remedial statute and it is required to be given a liberal CR.A/303/2001 12/19 JUDGMENT construction. It would be advantageous to quote certain observations from the above judgement as under: “The striking distinction between the 1986 Act and the 2000 Act is that under the 1986 Act a juvenile means a male juvenile who has not attained the age of 16 years and a female juvenile who has not attained the age of 18 years. In the 2000 Act no distinction has been drawn between the male and female juvenile. The limit of 16 years in the 1986 Act has been raised to 18 years in the 2000 Act. Section 20 of the 2000 Act deals with the special provision in respect of pending cases and begins with a non obstante clause. The sentence “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act came into force” has great significance. The proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court referred to in Section 20 of the Act are relatable to proceedings initiated before the 2000 Act came into force and which are pending when the 2000 Act came into force. The term “any court” would include even ordinary criminal courts. If the person was a “juvenile” under the 1986 Act the proceedings would not be pending in criminal courts. They would be pending in criminal courts only if the boy had crossed 16 years or the girl had crossed 18 years. This shows that section 20 refer to cases where a person had ceased to be a juvenile under the 1986 Act but had not yet crossed the age of 18 years then the pending case shall continue in that court as if the 2000 Act has not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in CR.A/303/2001 13/19 JUDGMENT respect of the juvenile shall forward the juvenile tot he Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile. Such an interpretation does not offend article 20(1) of the Constitution and the juvenile is not subjected to any penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted on him under the 1986 Act. Thus, considering the relevant definitions and provisions, it is held that the 2000 Act would be applicable tot hose cases initiated and pending trial/inquiry for the offences committed under the 1986 Act provided that the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1.4.2001.” 11.0 It is also relevant to note section 16 of the Act of 2000 which reads as under: “16. Order that may not be passed against juvenile – (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for he time being in force no juvenile in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment for any term which may extend to imprisonment for life, or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing security: Provided that where a juvenile who has attained the age of sixteen years has committed an offence and the Board is satisfied that the offence committed is so serious in nature or that his conduct and behaviour have been such that it would not be in his interest or in the interest of other juvenile in a special home to send him to such special home and that none of CR.A/303/2001 14/19 JUDGMENT the other measures provided under this Act is suitable or sufficient, the Board may order the juvenile in conflict with law to be kept in such place of safety and in such manner as it thinks fit and shall report the case for the order of the State Government. (1) On receipt of a report from a Board under sub-section (1), the State Government may make such arrangement in respect of the juvenile as it deems proper and may order such juvenile to be kept under protective custody at such place and on such conditions as it thinks fit. [Provided that the period of detention so ordered shall not exceed in any case the maximum period provided under section 15 of this Act.] 11.1 Thus, as per the above section no juvenile in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment for any term which may extend to imprisonment for life or be committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing security. 11.2 It is also required to be noted that in the Statement of Objections and reasons assigned while introducing The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the intentions inter alia stated are [a] to clarify that the Juvenile Justice Act shall apply to all CR.A/303/2001 15/19 JUDGMENT cases involving detention or criminal prosecution of juveniles under any other law, [b] to remove doubts regarding the relevant date in determining the juvenility of a person and applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act; [c] exclusion of the local authority from the provisions authorizing them to discharge or transfer a child in need of care and protection or a juvenile from the children's home or special home or for sending a juvenile in conflict with law undergoing imprisonment, to a special home or a fit institution; [d] to have a procedure laid down where claim of juvenility is raised before any court; [e] to have a minimum period of twenty-four hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place where the juvenile in conflict with law was apprehended, within which he should be produced before the Board and a similar provision with regard to production of a child before the Child Welfare Committee and [f] to do away with the association of any police officer from the inquiry process, for the child in need of care and protection as the work is assigned to the Child Welfare Committee and to cover other cases where the child can remain in children/shelter home after completion of inquiry. CR.A/303/2001 16/19 JUDGMENT 11.3 At this stage it is also profitable to note section 19 of the Act of 2000 which reads as under: “19. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. (2) The Board shall make an order directing that the relevant records of such conviction shall be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or a reasonable period as prescribed under the rules, as the case may be. 11.4 By the aforesaid provision the Act has also tried to see that the stigma on a juvenile attaching to a conviction of an offence under the law is removed. 11.5 From the facts of the case and finding given by the Court below at the relevant time the age of the appellant was below 18 years and therefore the date on which the trial begun, the age of juvenile was below 18 years and the appellant was above 16 and the trial court has rightly rejected the request of appellant and CR.A/303/2001 17/19 JUDGMENT proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. 11.6 In view of the discussion herein above and keeping in mind the amended Act and as per section 20 and (2)(l) the age of juvenile is determined at 18 years and admittedly the present appellant was below 18 years at the time of the incident. As far as the determination of age is concerned, in normal circumstances, we would have referred the matter to trial court but as discussed above, the age of the appellant has already been determined by the Sessions Court and finding is given which reflects in the order of trial court. Therefore it would not be necessary to refer the matter to court below for ascertaining the age of appellant as the appellant was below of the age of 18 years at the time of the incident. 11.7 Now the question comes whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Amended Act, especially section 2(l) and 20 of the Act. As per clause 2(l) of the amended Act, the age is determined at 18 years at the time of incident, which is made applicable to the pending appeal also inasmuch as the appeal is a continuous CR.A/303/2001 18/19 JUDGMENT proceeding. Therefore we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefits of amended Act. 12.0 The next question which we are required to consider is whether the matter should be referred to the juvenile court or not. In this regard, we are of the considered opinion that, as held in the case of Upendra Kumar (supra) after a long time of about 17 years, it would not be appropriate to refer the Appellant to the Juvenile Board. Therefore, the conviction is required to be sustained, but the sentence is required to be quashed. 12.0 In the premises aforesaid, we sustain the conviction of the appellant for the offences for which he has been found guilty by the Court of Session and at the same time the sentence awarded to the appellant is quashed. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 13.0 In so far as criminal Appeal No.487 of 2001 is concerned, we have heard Mr. H.L.Jani, learned APP for the State and have gone through the Criminal Appeal No.487 of 2001 and other materials on record. As a result CR.A/303/2001 19/19 JUDGMENT of hearing, Mr.Jani is not in a position to satisfy the conscience of the court for entertaining the appeal mainly on the ground that both the accused and the victim are from the same community and no case is made out for commission of offence under the provisions of Atrocities Act. We, are, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings recorded and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Special Judge and there are no merits in the appeal filed by the State and it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. [R.P. DHOLAKIA, J.] [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar