[2009] 6 S.C.R. 486

SATISH @ DHANNA 1'

STATE OF M.P. & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 2009)

APRIL 17, 2009

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

GANGULY, JJ.]

JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF c CHILDREN) ACT, 2000:

ss.2 (K), 16 and 20 - 'Juvenile' - On date of occurrence, 1986 Act was in operation - Subsequently 2000 Act coming into force - Held: On the date of occurrence and on the date

D of production of offender in court, he had not completed 18 years of age - He cannot be denied benefit of 2000 Act - Referring him to Juvenile Board at this stage would not be proper - While sustaining the conviction, sentence restricted to period already undergone - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147,

E 148, 3021149.

In the instant appeal filed by the appellant, who faced trial along with others for offences punishable u/ss. 147, 148 and 3021149 IPC, it was contended that on the date of occurrence he was a juvenile.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: It is to be noted that the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in operation on the date of occurrence.

Subsequently, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was enacted and it came into force w.e.f. 1.4.2001. Under s.2(h) of the 1986 Act, a juvenile is one who is below the age of 16 years whereas uls 2(k) of the 2000 Act, a juvenile or child means a person who has

H 486

SATISH @ DHANNA v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 487

not completed 18 years of age. The fact that on the date A of occurrence and the date of production before the court the appellant had not completed 18 years of age stands fully established on record. At this distant point of time to refer the appellant to the Juvenile Board would not be proper. Therefore, while sustaining the conviction B for the offence for which he has been found guilty, the sentence awarded is restricted to the period already undergone. [Para 3] [488-C-E; 489-A-B]

Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar 1997 (8) SCC 720; Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 1984 Supp SCC C 228 and Bhoop Ram v. State of UP. 1989 (3) SCC 1, relied on.

 Case Law Reference:

1997 (8) sec 120 relied on

1984 Supp sec 228 relied on

1989 (3) sec 1 relied on

para 3

para 3

para 3

CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal E No. 761 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 09.08.2007 of the High . Court of M.P. Bench at Indore in Criminal No. 152/98.

Shashindra Tripathi, Pratibha Sharma, Sharad Tripathi and Debasis Misra for the Appellants.

C.D. Singh, Sunny Chaudhary, Aditya Singh, Upasana Nath and Arvind Verma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench. Stand of the present appellant was that he was juvenile when the occurrence took place. His date of birth was 12.11.1980.

Various accused persons faced trial for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Learned counsel

for the appellant submitted that since the accused was juvenile, his trial could not have been held alongwith others. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted !hat the question whether the appellant was a juvenile y.tas never C raised earlier.

3. It is to be noted that prior to the date of occurrence the Madhya Pradesh Children Act, 1928 (in short the Children Act') was in force. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (in short 1986 Act') was in operation on the date of occurrence. Subsequently, the D Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000

(hereinafter referred to as '2000 Act') has been enacted. Under section 2(h) of the 1986 Act, a juvenile is one who is below the age of 16 years. Under the 2000 Act under Section 2(k), a juvenile or child means a person who has not completed 18 E years of age. The fact that on the date in question, i.e. on the date of occurrence and the date of production before the Court the appellant had not completed 18 years of age stands fully established on record. Section 16 of the 2000 Act provides that no juvenile shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life F or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default

of furnishing security. Section 20 provides for special provisions in respect of pending cases. The 2000 Act came into force on 1.4.2001. In Bhoia Bhagat v. State of Bihar (1997 (8) SCC

720) this Court after referring to the decision in Gopinath Ghosh G v. State of West Bengal (1984 Supp SCC 228) and Bhoop Ram v. State of UP. (1989 (3) sec 1) held that an accused who was juvenile cannot be denied the benefit of provisions of 2000 Act. The course this Court adopted in Gopinath's and Bhola Bhagat's cases (supra) was to sustain the conviction,

SATISH @ DHANNA v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 489

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

but at the same time modify the sentence awarded to the A convict. At this distant point of time to refer the appellant to the Juvenile Board would not be proper. Therefore, while sustaining the conviction for the offence for which he has been found guilty, the sentence awarded is restricted to the period already

undergone. The appellant be released from custody forthwith B unless required to be in custody in connection with any other case.

4. The appeal is allowed.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.