Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1650 - SUPREME COURTJuvenile Justice - Interpretation of statute - scope of heinous offence - Whether an offence prescribing a maximum sentence of more than 7 years imprisonment but not providing any minimum sentence, or providing a minimum sentence of less than 7 years, can be considered to be a 'heinous offence' within the meaning of Section 2(33) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015? HELD THAT:- From the scheme of Section 14, 15 and 19, it is clear that the Legislature felt that before the juvenile is tried as an adult a very detailed study must be done and the procedure laid down has to be followed. Even if a child commits a heinous crime, he is not automatically to be tried as an adult. This also clearly indicates that the meaning of the words 'heinous offence' cannot be expanded by removing the word 'minimum' from the definition - the word 'minimum' cannot be treated as surplusage, yet we are duty bound to decide as to how the children who have committed an offence falling within the 4th category should be dealt with. The appeal disposed off by answering the question set out in the first part of the judgment in the negative and hold that an offence which does not provide a minimum sentence of 7 years cannot be treated to be an heinous offence. However, the Act does not deal with the 4th category of offences viz., offence where the maximum sentence is more than 7 years imprisonment, but no minimum sentence or minimum sentence of less than 7 years is provided, shall be treated as 'serious offences' within the meaning of the Act and dealt with accordingly till the Parliament takes the call on the matter. Application disposed off.
|