REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    761         OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3541 of 2008)

Satish @ Dhanna  …Appellant

Versus

State of M.P. and Ors.  …Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench. Stand of the present appellant

was that he was juvenile  when the occurrence took place. His date of birth

was 12.11.1980. Various accused persons  faced trial for offence punishable

under Sections 147,  148, 302  read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal

Code,  1860  (in  short  the  ‘IPC’).   Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant

submitted that  since the accused  was juvenile, his trial could not have been

held  alongwith  others.  Learned  counsel  for  the  respondent-State  on  the

other hand  submitted that the question whether  the appellant was a juvenile

was never raised earlier.  

3. It is to be noted  that prior to  the date of occurrence  the Madhya

Pradesh Children Act, 1928 (in short the ‘Children Act’)  was in force.  The

Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (in short ‘1986 Act’) was in operation on the date

of occurrence. Subsequently, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children)  Act,  2000  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘2000  Act’)  has  been

enacted. Under section 2(h) of the 1986 Act, a juvenile is one who is below

the age of 16 years. Under the 2000 Act under Section 2(k), a juvenile or

child means a person who has not completed 18 years of age. The fact that

on  the date  in  question,    i.e.  on the  date  of  occurrence  and the date  of

production before the Court the appellant had not completed 18 years of age

stands fully established on record. Section 16 of the 2000 Act provides that

no  juvenile  shall  be  sentenced  to  death  or  imprisonment  for  life  or

committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing

2

security.  Section 20 provides for special provisions in respect of pending

cases.  The 2000 Act came into force on 1.4.2001. In Bhola Bhagat v. State

of Bihar  (1997 (8) SCC 720) this Court after referring to the decision in

Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1984 Supp SCC 228) and Bhoop

Ram v.  State  of  U.P. (1989  (3)  SCC 1)  held   that  an  accused  who was

juvenile cannot be denied the benefit of provisions of 2000 Act.  The course

this Court adopted in Gopinath’s  and  Bhola Bhagat’s cases (supra)  was to

sustain the conviction,  but at the same time modify the sentence awarded to

the convict. At this distant point of time to refer the appellant to the Juvenile

Board would not be proper. Therefore, while sustaining the conviction for

the offence for which he has been found guilty,  the sentence awarded is

restricted to the period already undergone.  The appellant be released from

custody forthwith unless required to be in custody in connection with any

other case. .  

4. The appeal is allowed.  

………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………….J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

3

New Delhi, April 17, 2009

4