Juvenile accused now aged 40 years; SC seeks Centre’s help to solve the impasse [Updated]

What should be the fate of an accused who was a juvenile at the time of commission of the offence but who is forty years old now? A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and UU Lalit are now faced with this unusual dilemma..The case relates to a murder which was committed in 1990 wherein the accused was tried as an adult. However, when the matter came in appeal, senior Counsel KTS Tulsi, appearing for the accused, submitted that the accused was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence. The Court sought a report in that regard from the District and Sessions Judge..With the report answering the issue in the affirmative, the Court is now faced with this interesting issue – what should be done with the accused who is now forty years old? Since, the accused was a juvenile when the offence was committed, the criminal trial stands vitiated and a fresh trial will have to be held before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)..Further, the implications of trial before the JJB is most interesting. The same has been prescribed under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and includes sending the offender to Special Home. With regard to the implications of a trial before the JJB, the Court has noted the following in its order today:.“As suggested by Mr. Tulsi, learned senior counsel, that if a man of 40 years or 45 years is sent for a punishment under Section 15, it will be an exercise in futility and, in fact, it will be traversty of justice. Similar feeling is echoed by Mr. Aggarwal that if he is sent to a Special Home or Observation Home by the Juvenile Board, he would be absolutely misfit there because the Observation Homes are meant for young juveniles in praesenti.Mr. Aggarwal would vehemently contend that if they are admonished and left or sent for parental or guardian care, it would also usher in a peculiar situation. There may be situations where there cannot be parents or guardian for such care. It is also contended by him that there may be cases where the parents may not be alive. In essence, the submission of Mr. Aggarwal is that there should be rethinking of the provision of raising/agitating the issue of juvenility “at any stage of the proceedings.”.Given the fact that no conclusion could be reached, the Court has sought the assistance of the Attorney General. The matter will now be heard today as item 101 in court 6..Update November 20, 2014: Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the Central government today, sought time to study and respond on the issue. The Court acceded to his request and granted the Centre eight weeks time to respond..Read the Supreme Court order below.