| Case number | Criminal Appeal No. 907 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3336 of 2006) |
| Judges | Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ. |
| Statutes | Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Sections 2, 3, 4, 7A, 7A(1), 7A(2), 15, 18, 20, 49, 49(1), 49(2) and 64; Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 – Section 2; Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 35; Juvenile Justice (Amendment) Act, 2006; Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 – Rules 12, 12(3), 12(4), 12(5), 1 |
| Citation | 2009 (57) BLJR 2333 , RLW 2009 (2) SC 1400 , 2009 (6) SCALE 695 , (2009) 13 SCC 211 , 2009 (6) UJ 2643 (SC) |
| Judgement Date | May 05, 2009 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Facts of the Case
- Arrest and Allegations: Hari Ram was arrested on November 30, 1998, along with others for various alleged offenses under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code.
- Age Determination: An order by the Additional Sessions Judge in Didwana on April 3, 2000, determined that Hari Ram was below 16 years old at the time of the offense. Consequently, the judge directed that he should be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board in Ajmer, Rajasthan.
- Legal Challenge: A joint order issued on December 7, 2005, by the Rajasthan High Court’s Jodhpur Bench was appealed. The appellant, Hari Ram, and Respondent No. 2 were dissatisfied with the ruling. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge regarding the charges but granted the State of Rajasthan’s petition, asserting that Hari Ram was not a juvenile, thus excluding the application of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
- Disputed Age: The appellant’s father stated Hari Ram’s birthdate as October 17, 1982, and the alleged offense took place on October 30, 1998. Medical examination suggested the appellant’s age between 16 and 17 years at the time of the incident.
Issues in the Case
- Juvenile Status Determination: The primary issue revolves around determining Hari Ram’s status as a juvenile at the time of the offense. The conflicting age claims – his father’s provided birthdate and medical examination – are central to this issue.
- Interpretation of Juvenile Justice Act: The case involves an interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and subsequent amendments that extended the definition of a juvenile from 16 to 18 years old.
- Legal Precedents and Evidence: The case delves into the significance of legal precedents and the admissibility of evidence (such as official records and school register entries) in determining an individual’s juvenile status, especially in borderline cases like Hari Ram’s.
- Implementation of Rehabilitative Justice: The case highlights the challenge of implementing a rehabilitative approach rather than a punitive one in handling juvenile offenders, as outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The focus is on shifting the mindset of those responsible for law enforcement to align with the Act’s rehabilitative objectives.
- Applicability of the Law to Past Cases: The legal issue surrounds the application of the amended law to cases involving offenses committed before the law’s enactment. It involves determining whether the law’s provisions should apply retroactively or only to offenses committed after its implementation.
Arguments in the Case
Appellant’s Argument (Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain)
- Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, representing the appellant, argued that the High Court’s ruling, denying the appellant’s status as a juvenile, undermined the rehabilitative intent of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. He made the following key arguments:
- Highlighted the Act’s revised definition of “juvenile” to encompass those under 18 years, altering the prior age limit from 16 to 18.
- Contested the High Court’s interpretation of legal precedents, such as Santenu Mitra vs. State of West Bengal and Umesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan, regarding the admissibility of records.
- Cited the case of Mohd. Ikram Hussain vs. State of U.P. & Ors., which acknowledged the reliability of school register entries made before the legal dispute as valid evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
- Referenced Umesh Chandra’s case, emphasizing the importance of regularly maintained official records regardless of the keeper being a public officer.
Respondents’ Argument:
- The respondents argued that the appellant, even based on the age provided by his father, was over 16 years old during the offense, hence not meeting the 1986 Act’s juvenile criteria. They contended that the High Court’s decision didn’t necessitate intervention, seeking the dismissal of the appeal.
Judgment in the Case
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order, and referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal in accordance with the law. The judgment specified a three-month deadline for resolution, considering the extended period since the alleged offense. If the appellant’s detention surpasses the maximum allowable period, the Board was instructed to release the appellant immediately.
The court’s decision was based on the interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and the amendments made to it, which extended the definition of a juvenile to encompass individuals under 18 years of age. It emphasized that juvenility in a case of conflict with the law is determined based on the age of the person at the time of the offense, not at the time of the court’s acknowledgment.
The judgment also considered the importance of rehabilitating young offenders, as outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act, and the need to prevent them from becoming hardened criminals. It clarified that the rehabilitative approach should be the focus, even in borderline cases where the individual’s age is slightly above the age limit specified in the 1986 Act.
The judgment upheld the appellant’s status as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and emphasized the need to consider the age at the time of the offense when determining juvenility. It also highlighted the significance of the rehabilitative intent of the Act in dealing with juvenile offenders.
REFRENCES
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1589001/
- https://vlex.in/vid/hari-ram-vs-state-572348026
- https://archive.crin.org/en/library/legal-database/hari-ram-v-state-rajasthan-another.html
This Article is written by Sukhjinder Kaur, Intern at Legal vidhiya
