2009 (5) TMI 911 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the person is a juvenile or not within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 ? Whether a male person who was above 16 years on the date of commission of the offence prior to 1st April 2001 would be entitled to be considered as a juvenile for the said offence if he had not completed the age of 18 years on the said date?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the appellant's age at the time of the alleged offence.
2. Applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, to the appellant's case.
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and its amendments.
4. Application of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, for age determination.
5. Retrospective application of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the appellant's age at the time of the alleged offence:
The appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge determined the appellant's age to be below 16 years on the date of the offence, directing trial by the Juvenile Justice Board. However, the High Court later held that the appellant was not a juvenile, based on the medical examination indicating his age to be between 16 and 17 years and his father's claim that his date of birth was 17th October 1982, making him 16 years and 13 days old at the time of the offence.

2. Applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, to the appellant's case:
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which came into force on 1st April 2001, defines a juvenile as a person who has not completed 18 years of age. The High Court's decision was based on the 1986 Act, which defined a juvenile as a male child below 16 years. The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court's technical approach defeated the rehabilitative object of the 2000 Act, which raised the age limit to 18 years.

3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and its amendments:
The Supreme Court considered the amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, particularly Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7A, and 20, which extended the definition of a juvenile to include those who had not completed 18 years at the time of the offence, even if the claim of juvenility was raised after they had turned 18. The Court emphasized the rehabilitative nature of the Act, aimed at reintegrating juveniles into society.

4. Application of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, for age determination:
Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, outlines the procedure for determining the age of a juvenile, prioritizing documents like matriculation certificates, school records, and birth certificates, and resorting to medical opinions only in their absence. The Court noted that the High Court did not have the benefit of these rules when making its decision.

5. Retrospective application of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000:
The Court referred to the amendments and the introduction of Rule 12, which clarified that the provisions of the 2000 Act apply retrospectively to cases pending on 1st April 2001, where the accused was below 18 years at the time of the offence. The Court held that the appellant, being below 18 years on the date of the alleged offence, was entitled to the benefits of the 2000 Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and held that the appellant was covered by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, as amended. The case was remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer, for disposal within three months. If the appellant had already been in detention for more than the maximum period allowed for juveniles, he was to be released immediately.