http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  318 of 2008

PETITIONER: JAYASINGH

RESPONDENT: STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/02/2008

BENCH: ALTAMAS KABIR & J.M. PANCHAL

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1505 of 2006)

            Leave granted.         The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal  Code and sentenced to life imprisonment, fine of Rs.1,000/- and six  months imprisonment in case of default, by the First Additional  Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.         The appellant has challenged the aforesaid judgment and sentence  on the ground that at the relevant point of time when the offence is  said to have been committed, he was a juvenile and should have been  tried under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection  of Children) Act, 2000, (hereinafter referred as \023the 2000 Act\024).         It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that such question had  not been raised either before the Trial Court or before the High Court  and that such point is being raised  for the first time before this Court.         In our view, if the age of the appellant was below 18 years on the  date of the  incident, then the very jurisdiction which was exercised by  the courts below was erroneous having regard to the provisions of the  2000 Act.         It may be indicated that under the Juvenile Justice Act,1986, a male  juvenile was defined to mean a person who had not completed sixteen  years of age.  with the enactment of the 2000 Act under Section 2(k)  the age limit was raised to 18 years.  Section 2(1) was subsequently  amended in 2006 to define a \023Juvenile in conflict with law\024 to mean 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 defence.         Apart from the above amendment, Section 20 of 2000 Act was also  amended by Section 14 of the Amendment Act of 2006, and Section 20  as amended reads as under:-

       \02320. Special provision in respect of pending cases. -  Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in  respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on  which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that  Court as if this Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the  juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and  instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the  juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that  juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been  satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the  offence.

     (Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason  to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate  order in the interest of such juvenile.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    Explanation. \026 In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal  or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict  with law, in any court, the determination of juvenility of such a  juvenile shall be in terms of clause (1) of section 2, even if the juvenile  ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act  and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had  been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the  alleged offence was committed.\024

       A glance at the above provisions will indicate that the  provisions of the 2000 Act were made applicable to juveniles and  juveniles who were in conflict with law but were below the age of 18  years prior to coming into operation of the 2000 Act.

       In other words, the appellant, who claims to be 16 years, 6  months and 9 days on the date of the incident on the strength of his  School Leaving Certificate, would be entitled to the benefit of Section  20 of the 2000 Act.  In addition to the above, we find from the copy of  the appellant’s Bisrth Certificate annexed to the Affidavit filed on  behalf of the State, that on the date of the offence the appellant was  17 years 10 months and 26 days,  which also attracts the amended  provisions of Section 20 of the 2000 Act.         In that view of the matter, the judgment under appeal, as far  the appellant is concerned, cannot be sustained and is set aside.   Since the appellant was a juvenile in terms of the 2000 Act on the date  of the incident, the maximum punishment that could have been  awarded to him is detention in a special home for a period of 3 years  in terms of Section 15(g).         Since we are informed that the appellant has already  undergone imprisonment of 7= years on the basis of the sentence  passed by the Sessions  Court, we reduce the sentence as passed, to  a period of three years in view of Section 15(g) of the 2000 Act.  Since  he has already undergone imprisonment  for the said period, the  appellant be released forthwith.         The appeal is allowed.