Supreme Court sets aside life imprisonment awarded to person accused of murder committed in 1981 on grounds of juvenility

Almost forty years after the offence was committed, the Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the life imprisonment of a convict after finding that he was entitled to be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000..The judgment rendered by the Bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna set aside the decision of the Allahabad High Court which awarded life imprisonment to the convict who was found to be a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence..While the Apex Court upheld the conviction, it set aside the order of life imprisonment and asked the Juvenile Justice Board to pass orders as regards the detention and custody of the petitioner in line with the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000..In 2018, the High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by three convicts against the decision of the trial court holding them guilty of murder..One of the three convicts had pleaded to be a juvenile at the time of the occurence of the incident. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petitions of the two co-accused, agreed to hear the plea of the third convict, Satya Deo..On Deo's plea claiming juvenility, the Supreme Court had directed the trial court to ascertain the petitioner's juvenility. When the report was placed before the Court, it showed that the petitioner was a juvenile as per the 2000 Act but did not fall within the definition of "juvenile" under the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986..Under the 1986 Act, the age of juvenility is up to 16 years for boys while under the 2000 Act, it is set at 18 years of age for both boys and girls. .The Supreme Court proceeded to ascertain which of the enactments would govern the proceedings in this case from among the 1986 and 2000 Acts, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act of 2015..The judgment noted that a Constitution Bench in the case of Pratap Singh v. the State of Jharkhand had held that the 2000 Act would be applicable in a pending proceeding instituted under the 1986 Act if the person had not completed eighteen years of age as on 1st April 2001, when the 2000 Act came into force.Further, as per this judgment, the reckoning date for the determination of the age of the juvenile is the date of the offence and not the date when he is produced before the authority or in a court..In the instant case, the petitioner was below the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the offence. Thus, the Court said that he must be extended the benefit of being tried as a juvenile..Even with the enactment of the 2015 Act and consequent repealing of the provisions of the 2000 Act, the proceedings pending before any Board under the 2000 Act would continue to be heard as though the new Act had not been brought into force, the Court noted. It was further held,."Thus it would not matter if the accused, though a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, had become an adult before or after the date of commencement of the 2000 Act on 01.04.2001. He would be entitled to benefit of the 2000 Act."Supreme Court.Section 6 of General Clauses Act, which deals with the effect of repeal, read with Section 25 of the 2015 Act, which deals with special provisions in relation to pending proceedings, it makes it amply clear that the petitioner must be proceeded against as per the provisions of the 2000 Act, the Bench noted.The judgment says,."...an accused cannot be denied his right to be treated as a juvenile when he was less than eighteen years of age at the time of commission of the offence, a right which he acquired and has fructified under the 2000 Act, even if the offence was committed prior to enforcement of the 2000 Act on 01.04.2001. In terms of Section 25 of the 2015 Act, 2000 Act would continue to apply and govern the proceedings which were pending when the 2015 Act was enforced.".On these grounds, the Court set aside the award of life imprisonment and directed the Juvenile Justice Board to proceed against the petitioner in line with the 2000 Act..Read Judgment: