Supreme Court Upholds Conviction, Reduces Sentence for Juvenile Offender in Heinous Crime Case

Date of the Judgment: March 3, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 1972
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Vikram Nath, J., Sanjay Karol, J.

Can a person convicted of a heinous crime be given the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act if they were a minor at the time of the offense? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on whether a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of legal proceedings, even after final disposal of the case. The court examined the interplay between the conviction and sentencing of a juvenile offender, ultimately deciding to uphold the conviction but reduce the sentence. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, with Justice Vikram Nath authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Karan @ Fatiya, was accused of offenses under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 376(2)(i) (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 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 awarded sentences ranging from five years of rigorous imprisonment to a death sentence for the murder charge on May 17, 2018. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the conviction and death sentence on November 15, 2018.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following key legal provisions:

• Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: This section outlines the procedure for a magistrate who is not empowered under the Act, when a person brought before him is a child. It also details the process for courts to determine a person’s age if they claim to be a child, even after the final disposal of the case. According to sub-section (3) of Section 9, if the court finds that a person was a child on the date of commission of the offense, it shall forward the child to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) for appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect.
  
  “9. Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this Act. —
  (1) When a Magistrate, not empowered to exercise the powers of the Board under this Act is of the opinion that the person alleged to have committed the offence and brought before him is a child, he shall, without any delay, record such opinion and forward the child immediately along with the record of such proceedings to the Board having jurisdiction.
  (2) 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:
  Provided that such a claim may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder even if the person has ceased to be a child on or before the date of commencement of this Act.
  (3) 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.
  (4) In case a person under this section is required to be kept in protective custody, while the person’s claim of being a child is being inquired into, such person may be placed, in the intervening period in a place of safety .”
• Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: This section deals with the presumption and determination of age. It specifies that the first preference for age determination is the birth certificate from the school or a matriculation certificate. An ossification test is only to be considered if the first two categories of documents are unavailable.
  
  “94 Presumption and determination of age:
  (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.
  (2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining –
  (i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;
  (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
  (iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:
  Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.
  (3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.”
• Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: This section outlines the orders that can be passed for a child found to be in conflict with the law. It specifies that for a child below the age of sixteen years who has committed a heinous offense, the maximum period of stay in a special home cannot exceed three years.
  
  “18. Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law. —
  (1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a child irrespective of age has committed a petty offence, or a serious offence, or a child below the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence, then, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, the Board may, if it so thinks fit, —
  (a) allow the child to go home after advice or admonition by following appropriate inquiry and counselling to such child and to his parents or the guardian;
  (b) direct the child to participate in group counselling and similar activities;
  (c) order the child to perform community service under the supervision of an organisation or institution, or a specified person, persons or group of persons identified by the Board;
  (d) order the child or parents or the guardian of the child to pay fine:
  Provided that, in case the child is working, it may be ensured that the provisions of any labour law for the time being in force are not violated;
  (e) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or fit person, on such parent, guardian or fit person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require, for the good behaviour and child’s well -being for any period not exceeding three years;
  (f) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care and supervision of any fit facility for ensuring the good behaviour and child’s well -being for any period not exceeding three years;
  (g) direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding three years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education, skill development, counselling, behaviour modification therapy, and psychiatric support during the period of stay in the special home:
  Provided that if the conduct and behaviour of the child has been such that, it would not be in the child’s interest, or in the interest of other children housed in a special home, the Board may send such child to the place of safety.
  (2) If an order is passed under clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1), the Board may, in addition pass orders to —
  (i) attend school; or
  (ii) attend a vocational training centre; or
  (iii) attend a therapeutic centre; or
  (iv) prohibit the child from visiting, frequenting or appearing at a specified place; or
  (v) undergo a de-addiction programme.
  (3) Where the Board after preliminary assessment under section 15 pass an order that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult, then the Board may order transfer of the trial of the case to the Children’s Court having jurisdiction to try such offences.”
• Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: This section states that all proceedings pending before any Board or Court on the date of commencement of this Act shall be continued in that Board or Court as if this Act had not been enacted.
  
  “25. Special provision in respect of pending cases. – Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a child alleged or found to be in conflict with law pending before any Board or court on the date of commencement of this Act, shall be continued in that Board or court as if this Act had not been enacted.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that based on the Trial Court’s report, the appellant was a juvenile (15 years, 4 months, and 20 days old) on the date of the offense. Therefore, the sentence awarded to him could not be given effect to under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act.
• It was submitted that the appellant had already undergone more than five years of incarceration since his arrest in December 2017. As per Section 18 of the 2015 Act, the maximum sentence for a juvenile below 16 years, even for a heinous offense, is three years in a special home.
• The appellant’s counsel contended that the appellant was liable to be released forthwith, having served more than the permissible sentence under the Juvenile Justice Act.

State’s Submissions:

• The State’s counsel argued that the appellant should be subjected to an ossification test to determine his correct 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.
• The State’s counsel maintained that an ossification test by a medical board was the only option to determine the appellant’s age.

[TABLE] Categorization of Submissions:

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in raising the claim of juvenility at the appellate stage, even after the final disposal of the case by the lower courts. The argument was also innovative in relying on the provisions of the 2015 Act to reduce the sentence and seek immediate release, instead of challenging the conviction.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the offense.
2. What relief could be granted to the appellant if he was found to be a child under the 2015 Act.
3. Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was in accordance with the provisions of the 2015 Act.
4. Whether the trial conducted by the Sessions Court was vitiated for lack of jurisdiction if the accused was a juvenile.
5. Whether the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court is to be set aside or the matter is to be referred to the JJB for passing appropriate orders on sentence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Jitendra Singh alias Babboo Singh and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2013 (11) SCC 193]: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but remitted the matter to the JJB for determining the appropriate quantum of fine and compensation. The court discussed four categories of cases: (1) conviction upheld but sentence quashed, (2) conviction upheld but sentence modified to the period already undergone, (3) conviction and sentence both set aside, and (4) conviction upheld and matter referred to the JJB for awarding a suitable sentence. The Court held that the case of the juvenile has to be examined on merits and if found guilty, the punishment must be left to the JJB.
  
  Ratio: The court can examine the merits of the conviction, but the sentence must be determined by the JJB.
• Mahesh vs. State of Rajasthan and others [(2018) SCCOnline SC 3655]: The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to the period already undergone, relying on the law laid down in Jitendra Singh (supra). The court held that the validity of the conviction should be decided on merits, and the entire proceedings should not be interfered with on the mere ground that the accused were juveniles on the date of the offense.
  
  Ratio: The court can examine the correctness of the conviction and uphold it, while modifying the sentence to the period already undergone.
• Satya Deo alias Bhoorey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2020) 10 SCC 555]: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, set aside the sentence of life imprisonment, and directed the jail authorities to produce the appellant before the JJB for appropriate orders regarding detention and custody. The court followed the ratio laid down in Jitendra Singh (supra).
  
  Ratio: The court can uphold the conviction, set aside the sentence, and refer the matter to the JJB for appropriate orders.
• Raju vs. State of Haryana [(2019) 14 SCC 401]: The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and terminated the proceedings, as the appellant had already undergone almost six years’ incarceration. The court accepted the report of the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court, who found the appellant to be aged less than 18 years.
  
  Ratio: The court can set aside the conviction and sentence and terminate the proceedings if the accused is found to be a juvenile and has undergone substantial incarceration.
• Ashok Kumar Mehra and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others [In 2019 (6) SCC 132]: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to appellant no. 2 therein, who had claimed to be a juvenile, following the judgment in Raju (supra).
  
  Ratio: The court can set aside the conviction and sentence if the accused is found to be a juvenile.

Statutes:

• Juvenile Justice Act, 1986: The court referred to this act as one of the previous legislations dealing with juvenile justice.
• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: The court discussed the provisions of this act, particularly Section 20, which deals with special provisions for pending cases. The court noted that all the judgments discussed earlier related to this act.
• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: The court extensively discussed the provisions of this act, particularly Sections 9, 18, 25, and 94, which were crucial for deciding the case.

[TABLE] Treatment of Authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

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 Court approved and followed this judgment, reiterating that the merits of the conviction could be examined, while the sentence must be determined by the JJB.
• Mahesh vs. State of Rajasthan and others [(2018) SCCOnline SC 3655]* The Court approved and followed this judgment, reiterating that the court can examine the correctness of the conviction and uphold it, while modifying the sentence to the period already undergone.
• Satya Deo alias Bhoorey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2020) 10 SCC 555]* The Court approved and followed this judgment, reiterating that the court can uphold the conviction, set aside the sentence, and refer the matter to the JJB for appropriate orders.
• Raju vs. State of Haryana [(2019) 14 SCC 401]* The Court distinguished this judgment on facts, noting that it did not lay down any ratio that if with respect to a juvenile a trial has been conducted by a Sessions Court without the accused having claimed juvenility before it, conviction could be set aside as being vitiated in law if subsequently it is held that the accused was a juvenile.
• Ashok Kumar Mehra and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others [In 2019 (6) SCC 132]* The Court distinguished this judgment on facts, noting that this judgment also does not lay down any ratio that if with respect to a juvenile a trial has been conducted by a Sessions Court without the accused having claimed juvenility before it, conviction could be set aside as being vitiated in law if subsequently it is held that the accused was a juvenile.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Statutory Mandate: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, particularly Section 9, which requires the court to forward a child to the JJB if the person was a child on the date of the offense, and Section 18, which limits the maximum sentence for a juvenile below 16 years of age.
• Documentary Evidence: The court relied heavily on the documentary evidence, including the birth certificate from the government primary school, which was duly proved in the inquiry before the Trial Court.
• Opportunity for the State: The court noted that the State had sufficient opportunity to raise objections regarding the documents filed by the appellant during the inquiry before the Trial Court, but it failed to do so.
• Precedents: The court followed the principles laid down in previous judgments such as Jitendra Singh, Mahesh, and Satya Deo, which held that the court can examine the merits of the conviction, but the sentence must be determined by the JJB.
• Legislative Intent: The court emphasized that the intention of the legislature was to give benefit to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of the offense only with respect to its sentence part, and not to allow them to go scot-free.

[TABLE] Ranking of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Ratio of Fact to Law: The judgment appears to be a balanced mix of facts and law. Approximately 60% of the judgment was based on the factual findings, including the age of the appellant, the evidence presented, and the specific circumstances of the case. The remaining 40% was based on the legal interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the application of relevant precedents. The court’s reasoning was primarily based on a strict interpretation of the statutory provisions and the factual findings, rather than any subjective or policy-based considerations.

Final Order

The Supreme Court passed the following orders:

1. The appeal was partly allowed.
2. The conviction of the appellant was upheld.
3. The sentence awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court was set aside.
4. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Flowchart of the Legal Process

Critical Analysis

Strengths of the Judgment:

• Adherence to Statutory Mandate: The judgment strictly adheres to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, ensuring that the rights of juvenile offenders are protected.
• Reliance on Documentary Evidence: The court’s reliance on the birth certificate from the school as the primary evidence of age is in accordance with the statutory provisions and ensures a fair determination of juvenility.
• Consistency with Precedents: The judgment is consistent with the principles laid down in previous judgments, providing clarity on the legal position regarding the interplay between conviction and sentencing of juvenile offenders.
• Protection of Juvenile Rights: The judgment protects the rights of juvenile offenders by ensuring that they are not subjected to harsh sentences that are not in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act.

Weaknesses of the Judgment:

• Limited Scope of Inquiry: The court’s decision not to subject the appellant to an ossification test may be seen as a weakness, as it relied primarily on the birth certificate from the school. However, the court did follow the mandate of the law in not opting for an ossification test.
• Potential for Misuse: The judgment may potentially be misused by offenders who claim juvenility at a belated stage to avoid harsh sentences, even if they are not actually juveniles.

Implications of the Judgment:

• Clarity on Juvenile Justice Act: The judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the determination of age and the sentencing of juvenile offenders under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
• Protection of Juvenile Rights: The judgment reinforces the importance of protecting the rights of juvenile offenders and ensuring that they are not subjected to harsh sentences.
• Need for Thorough Inquiry: The judgment highlights the need for a thorough inquiry into the age of the accused at the initial stages of legal proceedings to avoid belated claims of juvenility.
• Impact on Sentencing: The judgment emphasizes that the sentence of a juvenile offender must be in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and that any sentence imposed by the court must be deemed to have no effect if the person was a child on the date of the offense.

[TABLE] Critical Analysis Summary:

Concluding Remarks

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Karan @ Fatiya vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh is a significant ruling that reinforces the importance of protecting the rights of juvenile offenders under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The court’s decision to uphold the conviction but set aside the sentence based on the appellant’s juvenility demonstrates a balanced approach to justice, ensuring that while the offender is held accountable for their actions, they are also given the benefit of the special protections afforded to them under the law. The judgment underscores the need for a thorough and timely inquiry into the age of the accused in cases involving heinous offenses to ensure that the principles of juvenile justice are upheld. The judgment also serves as a reminder that the legal system must be sensitive to the unique vulnerabilities of juvenile offenders and that their rehabilitation and reintegration into society should be the primary focus of the justice system.