Supreme Court rules on juvenility of accused in a 1981 murder case: Satya Deo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020)

Date of the Judgment: October 7, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 777
Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Can an individual, convicted of a crime committed as a minor under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, be considered a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, even if they are no longer a minor when the 2000 Act came into force? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Satya Deo @ Bhoorey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. The court held that the accused, who was a minor at the time of the offense, is entitled to the benefits of the 2000 Act, regardless of his age when the Act came into force. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, with Justice Sanjiv Khanna authoring the opinion.

Case Background

In 1981, a First Information Report (FIR No. 156/1981) was filed at Police Station Gilaula, District Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, concerning a murder. Keshav Ram, Ram Kuber, and Satya Deo @ Bhoorey were accused of committing the offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court convicted all three individuals and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Satya Deo, filed a plea of juvenility before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Satya Deo along with Keshav Ram and Ram Kuber for the offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction. Subsequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Keshav Ram and Ram Kuber but issued notice to Satya Deo on the plea of juvenility. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to conduct an inquiry to ascertain Satya Deo’s age at the time of the offense. The inquiry report confirmed that Satya Deo was a juvenile at the time of the offense, according to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

• Juvenile Justice Act, 1986: Defined a juvenile as a boy under 16 years of age and a girl under 18 years of age.
• Section 2(l) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: Defines “juvenile in conflict with law” as “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.”
• Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: A special provision for pending cases, stating that proceedings should continue in the same court but if the court finds the accused to be a juvenile, it shall forward the case to the Juvenile Justice Board. The Explanation to Section 20 clarifies that the determination of juvenility shall be in terms of clause (l) of Section 2, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so.
• Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: Specifies the procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before any court. The proviso states that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case.
• Section 64 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: Deals with juveniles undergoing sentence at the commencement of the Act, directing that they be sent to a special home or fit institution. The Explanation states that the issue of juvenility shall be decided in terms of clause (l) of Section 2.
• Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: States that all proceedings pending before any Board or court on the date of commencement of this Act shall be continued as if this Act had not been enacted.

Arguments

The primary argument revolved around whether Satya Deo, who was a juvenile under the 2000 Act at the time of the offense but not under the 1986 Act, could benefit from the provisions of the 2000 Act, given that he was no longer a juvenile when the 2000 Act came into force.

• Appellant’s Submission: Satya Deo argued that since he was below 18 years of age on the date of the offense, he should be treated as a juvenile under the 2000 Act, despite the fact that he was no longer a minor when the Act came into force. He relied on the provisions of Section 2(l), Section 20, Section 7A and Section 64 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
• Respondent’s Submission: The State argued that the 1986 Act should apply, under which Satya Deo was not a juvenile. The State also relied on the decision in Gaurav Kumar @ Monu v. State of Haryana [(2019) 4 SCC 549]

The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in its reliance on the specific provisions of the 2000 Act, particularly Section 20 and its Explanation, which explicitly address pending cases and the determination of juvenility based on the age at the time of the offense.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether Satya Deo, who was below 18 years of age on the date of the offense but not a juvenile under the 1986 Act, is entitled to the benefits of the 2000 Act, given that he was no longer a juvenile when the 2000 Act came into force.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Arnit Das v. State of Bihar [(2000) 5 SCC 488] and Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan [(1982) 2 SCC 202]: These cases highlighted the conflicting views on the application of the 2000 Act to pending proceedings, which led to the reference to a Constitution Bench.
• Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand [(2005) 3 SCC 551]: This Constitution Bench decision was followed to clarify that the 2000 Act applies to pending proceedings if the person had not completed 18 years on 1st April 2001, and that the reckoning date is the date of the offense.
• Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 5 SCC 344]: The Court relied on this case to analyze the scheme and application of the 2000 Act, holding that those below 18 on the date of the offense are entitled to the benefits of the Act.
• Mumtaz v. State of U.P [(2016) 11 SCC 786]: This case was used to elucidate the effect of Section 20 of the 2000 Act, emphasizing that the determination of juvenility has to be in terms of clause (l) of Section 2.
• Bijender Singh v. State of Haryana [(2005) 3 SCC 685]: The Court relied on this case to state the legal position regarding Section 20, noting that a person above 16 years under the 1986 Act could be treated as a juvenile under the 2000 Act for the purpose of sentencing.
• Kalu v. State of Haryana [(2012) 8 SCC 34]: This case was used to sum up the special provision in respect of pending cases under Section 20, clarifying that the determination of juvenility would be in terms of clause (l) of Section 2.
• Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 13 SCC 211]: The Court affirmed that the determination of juvenility would be in terms of clause (l) of Section 2, even if the juvenile ceased to be so before the commencement of the 2000 Act, following this precedent.
• Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P. [(2001) 4 SCC 355]: This case was cited to observe that the trial court’s verdict does not attain finality during the pendency of the appeal.
• Jitendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2013) 11 SCC 193]: This case was used to deal with the kind of order that could be passed in a matter where the claim of juvenility is accepted.
• Gaurav Kumar @ Monu v. State of Haryana [(2019) 4 SCC 549]: The Court held this case to be of no avail as the decision was on interpretation and application of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, for the procedure to be followed in determination of age.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legislative intent behind the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which aimed to provide a more child-friendly approach to dealing with juveniles in conflict with the law. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The 2000 Act’s definition of a juvenile as someone below 18 years of age on the date of the offense.
• The special provision for pending cases in Section 20 of the 2000 Act, which mandates that the court determine juvenility based on the age at the time of the offense.
• The proviso to Section 7A, which allows a claim of juvenility to be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case.
• The mandatory nature of Section 64, which directs that the case of a juvenile be decided in terms of clause (l) of Section 2.

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal provisions and their interpretation, with a higher emphasis on the legal aspects (80%) compared to the factual aspects (20%) of the case.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them in favor of the explicit provisions of the 2000 Act. The Court emphasized that the 2000 Act was designed to provide a more child-friendly approach to dealing with juveniles in conflict with the law and that this intent should be upheld.

The Supreme Court held that Satya Deo, being less than 18 years of age on the date of commission of the offense, was entitled to be treated as a juvenile and be given benefit as per the 2000 Act. The Court set aside the sentence of life imprisonment and remitted the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate orders under Section 15 of the 2000 Act.

“The statute overrules and modifies the sentence awarded, even in decided cases.”

“The Explanation which was added in 2006, makes it very clear that in all pending cases, which would include not only trials but even subsequent proceedings by way of revision or appeal, the determination of juvenility of a juvenile would be in terms of clause (l) of Section 2, even if the juvenile ceased to be a juvenile on or before 1-4-2001”

“In fact, Section 20 enables the court to consider and determine the juvenility of a person even after conviction by the regular court and also empowers the court, while maintaining the conviction, to set aside the sentence imposed and forward the case to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned for passing sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.”

Key Takeaways

• The age of an accused on the date of the offense is the determining factor for juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
• The 2000 Act applies to all pending cases, even if the accused was no longer a juvenile when the Act came into force.
• Courts can determine the juvenility of an accused at any stage of the proceedings, including after conviction.
• If an accused is found to be a juvenile, the court must forward the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders.

This decision has significant implications for cases where individuals were minors at the time of the offense but were tried as adults under the 1986 Act. It ensures that the benefits of the 2000 Act are extended to all such individuals, promoting a more child-friendly approach to justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the jail authorities to produce Satya Deo before the Juvenile Justice Board within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Board was then directed to pass appropriate orders regarding detention and custody and proceed thereafter to pass orders/directions under the 2000 Act.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, applies to all pending cases where the accused was a juvenile (below 18 years of age) at the time of the offense, irrespective of their age when the Act came into force. This decision clarifies and reinforces the principle that the age at the time of the offense is the determining factor for juvenility, and it changes the previous position of law under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

Conclusion

In the case of Satya Deo @ Bhoorey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that an individual who was a minor at the time of the offense, as per the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, is entitled to the benefits of the Act, regardless of whether they were a minor when the Act came into force. This decision reaffirms the importance of considering the age of the accused at the time of the offense and ensures that the provisions of the 2000 Act are applied to all eligible individuals. The Supreme Court set aside the sentence of life imprisonment and remitted the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders.