JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015

Facts: The Appellants were convicted for murder under IPC, 1860 and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine. Trial Court found that the FIR recorded at the instance of the deceased could be relied upon as dying declaration and that the statements of the witnesses as well as the recoveries at the instance of Accused proved the case of prosecution. It was, however, found that the case was not proved against the fourth Accused and none of the Accused could be held guilty under offences punishable under SC/ST Act. In the appeal it was contended that witnesses were tutored which however was not accepted by High Court. An application was also filed submitting that one Accused was a juvenile on the day the offence was committed and sought relief accordingly.

Held: Even while holding the Appellant to be juvenile in terms of the 2000 Act and guilty of the offence with which he was charged, sentence of life imprisonment is set aside and matter remitted to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board for determining appropriate quantum of fine to be levied on Appellant.

Facts: The petitioner, namely Abdul Riyaz, who has been convicted for murder and conspiracy along with his father and 3 elder brothers, was sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and fine by the sessions court. The petitioner challenged the said judgment and order before this Court and this Court confirmed the said judgment and order of the conviction. Thereafter the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition before Honorable Supreme Court along with application for delay condonation. The Honorable Supreme Court allowed the said application for condonation of delay, but rejected the Special Leave Petition. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment inflicted upon the petitioner herein was confirmed up to the Honorable Supreme Court. By the present petition, the petitioner has raised the contention that his date of birth is 15.6.1986 and hence, on the date of commission of offence i.e. 12.8.2003 his age was 17 years 1 month and 27 days. To substantiate the date of birth, the petitioner produced his school leaving certificate disclosing his afore said date of birth therein. Basing upon the afore said date of birth and the provisions of this Act, the petitioner claims juvenility and contends that he was juvenile in conflict with law on the date of commission of offence i.e. 12.8.2003. Accordingly, the petitioner prays that benefit of the said provisions be given to the petitioner and he be released from the jail forthwith.

Held: The Lecturer in Radiology, Medical College, Aurangabad submitted the Radiological (Bone) Assessment report through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor before us on 8.9.2009. On perusal of the said report, it is seen that the present approximate age of the petitioner convict is given as 20 years. Even after giving latitude of 2 years plus/minus and considering the present age of the petitioner on the higher side i.e. 22 years, it is apparently clear that the petitioners age on the date of commission of the offence i.e. on 12.8.2003 would be 16 years and, therefore, it is amply clear that the petitioner was the juvenile in conflict with law on the date of commission of the offence. Even basing upon the school leaving certificate produced by the petitioner and also the school leaving certificate, bona fide certificate and the school admission register produced by the respondent, the date of birth of the petitioner is disclosed therein as 15.6.1986 and considering the date of the commission of the offence i.e. 12.8.2003, it is crystal clear that the age of the petitioner was of 17 years 1 month and 27 days i.e. below 18 years on the said date and he was juvenile in conflict with law on the date of commission of the offence. Hence petition allowed.

Facts: A First Information Report was lodged by one Arif Khan resident of Mohalla Sarab Gyan, District Shamli against unknown persons with the averment that on 20.9.2016 at about 9.00 p.m. his father, Shamim Ahmed had gone to another house for sleeping and about 9.30 P.M. his father was murdered by some unknown assailants by causing knife injuries. Neither anyone was named in the F.I.R. nor any suspicion was laid by the first informant on anyone. During investigation the statement of first informant was recorded who repeated version of First Information Report and again he did not name any accused or laid suspicion. According to the prosecution during investigation on the information of an informer of police (Mukhbir Khas), Riyazuddin son of Aslam, Shakoor, Abid son of Shakoor, Amna, Abida and Fatma daughters of Shakoor were involved in the murder of Shamim Ahmad. The name of the revisionist emerged from the confessional statement of Riyazuddin while in custody before the police wherein he has stated that he along with revisionist and other accused persons committed murder of the deceased as the deceased used to keep evil eye on some of the women folk of their family. On the basis of the invincible confessional statement of co-accused, the revisionist and other accused were arrested from their house and since then the revisionist is in custody. The record indicates that nothing incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the revisionist and on the basis of aforesaid scanty evidence charge-sheet was submitted against her. After the revisionist was arrested by the police an application on her behalf was moved by her mother for declaring her a juvenile. After recording evidence and perusing the material placed before it, recorded finding that on the date of the incident revisionist was thirteen years two and half months' old and she thus was declared a juvenile in conflict with law. After being adjudged juvenile the revisionist moved an application for being released on bail but her prayer for bail was refused by the Board vide its order dated 28.4.2017 by recording finding that there are chances and likelihood that after being released on bail she may fall in company of the known and unknown criminals and, therefore, her moral and psychological trait/qualities may deteriorate with the additional finding that her release on bail will defeat the cause of justice. It may be recorded that the Board has simply reproduced the conditions for grant/refusal of bail as contemplated under section 12 of the Act. He has only referred to the report of District Probation Officer dated 20.4.2017. Aggrieved by the continued decline of her prayer for bail by subordinate courts, the revisionist has moved the high court.

Held: It transpires that prima facie there is no reliable and credible evidence of involvement of the revisionist in the murder. The bail to a juvenile cannot be refused in an uncared manner and on conjectures and surmises which should be done in accordance with section 12 of the Act. There was total absence of material and no reasonable ground existed for believing that after being released on bail, the revisionist is likely to come in association with known or unknown criminals or expose her to moral, physical and psychological danger and the finding that the ends of justice would be defeated by granting bail, is based on no material and in my opinion it is purely conjectural and hypothetical may record that Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board has dealt with the case in a very casual and perfunctory manner without assigning reasons or dealing with the facts and circumstances which would disentitle her to be enlarged on bail. I am of the opinion that both the Courts below have erred in exercising their discretionary power in favour of the revisionist and the impugned orders suffer from patent error of law as well as of fact and cannot be sustained. Consequently, the revision is allowed.

Facts: On February 2, 1998, at about 10.00 A.M., the prosecutrix had gone out to the fields for relieving herself. There she was accosted by the Appellant. Seeing him take off his pants, the prosecutrix tried to run away but the Appellant caught hold of her and pulled her down to the ground. The prosecutrix freed herself by biting on the Appellant's hand and ran towards her house. The Appellant chased her and again caught hold of her. He pulled her down and grabbed her breasts and attempted to commit rape on her. She resisted him and in their struggle some mustard crops grown in the field were also damaged. On alarm raised by the prosecutrix, her mother and uncle came to the spot and on seeing them, the Appellant ran away threatening the prosecutrix that he would kill her in case she went to the police. The Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, trying the offence, on a consideration of the evidence adduced before him, found and held that the charge against the Appellant was fully proved and convicted him. The convict appealed the case of juvinility. Appellant was convicted under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and his plea of being Juvenile was rejected by Courts below. Hence this Appeal.

Held: In view of the Juvenile Justice Act as it stands after the amendments introduced into it and following the decision in Hari Ram and the later decisions the Appellant can not be kept in prison to undergo the sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge and affirmed by the High Court. The sentence imposed against the Appellant is set aside and he is directed to be released from prison. He is further directed to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Narnaul, for passing appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. The appeal is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.