Supreme Court Upholds Conviction, Reduces Sentence Based on Juvenility Claim: Karan @ Fatiya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: March 3, 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 173

Judges: B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Can a person convicted of a heinous crime have their sentence altered if they were a juvenile at the time of the offense? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Karan @ Fatiya vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. This judgment clarifies the procedure for determining juvenility claims and the implications for sentencing under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Vikram Nath.

Case Background

The appellant, Karan @ Fatiya, was charged with offenses under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 376(2)(i) (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC. The Trial Court convicted him on all counts and sentenced him to death for the murder charge, along with other sentences for the remaining offenses. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh affirmed both the conviction and the death sentence.

During the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, the appellant filed an application claiming juvenility, asserting that he was a juvenile on the date of the offense and thus entitled to the benefits under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant for offenses under Sections 363, 376(2)(i) of the IPC, Sections 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the death sentence. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application before the Supreme Court claiming juvenility under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to conduct an inquiry to determine the appellant’s age on the date of the offense.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, specifically:

• Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act: This provision allows a person to claim juvenility before any court, even after the final disposal of the case. It mandates the court to conduct an inquiry to determine the age of the person. The proviso to this section states that such a claim can be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case.
• Section 9(3) of the 2015 Act: If the court finds that the person was a child on the date of the offense, it must forward the child to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) for appropriate orders. Any sentence passed by the court is deemed to have no effect.
• Section 94 of the 2015 Act: This section outlines the procedure for determining a person’s age. It prioritizes documentary evidence such as birth certificates from schools or municipal authorities. An ossification test is to be conducted only in the absence of such documentary evidence.
• Section 18 of the 2015 Act: This section specifies the orders that a JJB can pass for a child in conflict with the law. For a child below 16 years who has committed a heinous offense, the maximum period of stay in a special home is three years.

The Supreme Court also referred to Section 25 of the 2015 Act which states that all proceedings pending before any Board or Court on the date of commencement of the 2015 Act, shall be continued in that Board or Court as if this Act had not been enacted.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that based on the Trial Court’s report, he was a juvenile on the date of the offense.
• He contended that the sentence awarded to him could not be enforced under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act.
• He submitted that since he had already spent more than five years in incarceration, which exceeds the maximum sentence of three years for a juvenile under Section 18 of the 2015 Act, he should be released immediately.

State’s Submissions:

• The State argued that an ossification test should be conducted to determine the appellant’s age.
• The State contended that the documents filed during the inquiry before the Trial Court were not covered under Section 94 of the 2015 Act.

Sub-Submissions:

The State did not cross examine the witnesses in the inquiry before the Trial Court and did not raise any objections to the documents filed by the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the offense.
2. Whether the report of the Trial Court regarding the appellant’s age should be accepted.
3. Whether an ossification test was necessary to determine the appellant’s age.
4. What relief can be granted to the appellant if he is found to be a juvenile.
5. Whether the conviction of the appellant should be set aside.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under the Act.
• Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law.
• Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Special provision in respect of pending cases.
• Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Presumption and determination of age.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Jitendra Singh alias Babboo Singh and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2013 (11) SCC 193]:* The Supreme Court approved and followed this judgment, emphasizing that while the sentence must be in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act, the conviction can be upheld.
• Mahesh vs. State of Rajasthan and others [(2018) SCCOnline SC 3655]:* The Supreme Court approved and followed this judgment, reinforcing the view that the conviction can be maintained while modifying the sentence to the period already served.
• Satya Deo alias Bhoorey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2020) 10 SCC 555]:* The Supreme Court approved and followed this judgment, reiterating that the conviction can be upheld, and the matter can be referred to the JJB for appropriate orders on the sentence.
• Raju vs. State of Haryana [(2019) 14 SCC 401]:* The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that while the conviction was set aside, there was no discussion on whether the conviction should be set aside on technical grounds.
• Ashok Kumar Mehra and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others [In 2019 (6) SCC 132]:* The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that the conviction was set aside without any discussion on the issue.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The conclusive finding of the Trial Court that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the offense, based on credible documentary and oral evidence.
• The statutory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which mandate that a juvenile cannot be subjected to a sentence exceeding three years.
• The need to balance the rights of the juvenile with the gravity of the offense, ensuring that the juvenile does not go unpunished but receives appropriate treatment under the juvenile justice system.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the State’s argument for an ossification test, stating that it is not precise and should only be used when primary documentary evidence is unavailable. The Court also clarified that while the sentence must be set aside, the conviction can be upheld, as the trial conducted by the Sessions Court was not vitiated.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “It is found conclusively proved that date of birth of the applicant/accused Karan is 25.07.2002. It is also proved taking into account 25.07.2002 as his date of birth, the applicant was 15 years 04 months 20 days of age as on 15.12.2017, and being below 16 years of age, he was Child as per section 2(12) of J.J. Act, 2015.”
• “In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be.”
• “If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect.”

Key Takeaways

• A claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even after the final disposal of the case.
• Documentary evidence, such as school records, is given priority in determining a person’s age.
• If a person is found to be a juvenile on the date of the offense, the sentence passed by the court must be set aside.
• The maximum period of stay in a special home for a juvenile below 16 years who has committed a heinous offense is three years.
• The conviction can be upheld even if the sentence is set aside due to juvenility.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith, as he had already served more than the maximum permissible sentence for a juvenile.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even after final disposal of the case, and the sentence awarded to a juvenile must be set aside, the conviction can be upheld. This clarifies the position of law and provides a balanced approach to dealing with cases involving juvenile offenders.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant but set aside the sentence, ordering his immediate release, as he was found to be a juvenile on the date of the offense and had served more than the maximum permissible sentence. The judgment reinforces the importance of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, in protecting the rights of children in conflict with the law while also ensuring that they do not go unpunished.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 363, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Juvenile Justice
  • Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
  • Section 9, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
  • Section 18, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
  • Section 25, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
  • Section 94, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
• POCSO Act
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
  • Section 5, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
  • Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

FAQ

Q: Can a person claim to be a juvenile at any stage of a legal proceeding?

A: Yes, according to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a person can claim to be a juvenile at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case.

Q: What happens if a person is found to be a juvenile after being convicted?

A: If a person is found to be a juvenile on the date of the offense, the sentence passed by the court will be set aside, and the matter will be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) for appropriate orders. The conviction can be upheld.

Q: What is the maximum sentence that can be awarded to a juvenile?

A: For a juvenile below 16 years who has committed a heinous offense, the maximum period of stay in a special home is three years.

Q: What type of evidence is considered to determine a person’s age?

A: Documentary evidence, such as birth certificates from schools or municipal authorities, is given priority. An ossification test is conducted only if documentary evidence is not available.

Q: Can a juvenile go unpunished if they commit a heinous crime?

A: No, the Juvenile Justice Act aims to balance the rights of the juvenile with the gravity of the offense. While the sentence may be reduced, the juvenile will still be subject to appropriate measures under the juvenile justice system, including reformative services.