| Citation | (2013) 11 SCC 193 |
| Date of Judgment | 10TH JULY 2013 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Criminal Appeal |
| Appellant | Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh & Anr. |
| Respondent | State of U.P. |
| Bench | T.S.Thakur, Madan B. Lokur |
| Referred | Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- Section 2, Section 7A Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 304B, Section 498A |
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the aforementioned case, Asha Devi was allegedly set on fire by her husband and two other persons (her in-laws) who were demanding dowry which she was unable to meet. After the incident Asha Devi’s uncle lodged a complaint at the local police station who after investigation filed a charge sheet against the appellants and two other persons, alleged offences committed under Section 147, Section 302, Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC. Thereafter the case proceeded to trial and the Sessions Judge delivered judgment on 30th August 1990, convicted the appellants under Section 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and acquitted the other two persons. Further the appellants appealed before the Allahabad High Court, but it was subsequently dismissed. Against this judgement the appellants came up in appeal to the Supreme Court and during the pendency of the appeal the father-in-law of Asha Devi died. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant filed a petition for raising additional grounds that on the commission of the offence he was a juvenile or child as per the Section 2(k) of the Juvenile (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000 and his age was 14 years. This application was considered by the Supreme Court and necessitated an inquiry into the claim of the appellant.
ISSUES
In the Supreme Court of India, three main issues that were raised:
- Whether the appellant on the date of occurrence of the offence was a juvenile or a child as defined by Section2(k) of the Juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000?
- If he was a Juvenile or child then weather his conviction is justified or not?
- Whether any appropriate measures can be taken to prevent a situation where an accused is tried in a regular criminal court but is later found to be a juvenile?
ARGUMENTS
The appellant argued that he was a juvenile when the offence was committed. Also the Appellant’s wife was 4 to 5 years older than him and in their community the wife is normally older than the husband at the time of marriage. The Appellant argued that it was a case of accidental death and not of dowry death as Asha Devi had accidentally caught fire while she was cooking.
The respondent argued that the document pertaining to the education of the appellant were produced after a great delay and not immediately. It was also submitted that it is improbable that a girl of about fifteen years of age would get married to a boy of about nine years of age.
JUDGEMENT
The Court reviewed the trial court and the High Court’s finding and upheld their judgment convicting and sentencing the Appellant, however it was determined that the Appellant was a juvenile or a child and fell under the definition of Section 2(k) of the JJ Act. So, in determining the sentence to be awarded to a convict who committed the offence as a Juvenile, the Court examined four categories of cases and followed the precedent of Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 9 SCC 750 in which the conviction of the appellant was upheld and as required by the Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the records were directed to be placed before the Juvenile Justice Board for awarding suitable punishment to the appellant. Further The Juvenile Justice Board agreed with the Order proposed by the Court.
To prevent future occurrences of this issue, the Court underlined the responsibilities of police officers and Magistrates. The Court emphasized on the principle of the best interests of the juvenile, that when it comes to delivering justice, the focus should be on helping the juvenile rehabilitate and reintegrate into society, rather than solely seeking retribution or punishment. It is crucial to safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of juveniles throughout legal proceedings. The main objective is to help the children regain their dignity and self-worth, preferably within their own families, or if necessary, through alternative care programs. Only as a last resort should long-term institutional care be considered.
Consequently, the Court highlighted on the India’s international obligations and domestic law, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to arrest and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, stating that every Magistrate prima facie must determine whether the individual is an adult or a juvenile in conflict with the law. In case there is any uncertainty, the Magistrate must carry out an age inquiry, as mandated by Section 7A of the JJ Act, to establish whether the accused individual is a juvenile or not. This aims to prevent juveniles from undergoing procedures outside the specified law and rules, and avoiding situations where their trials might be invalidated due to lack of jurisdiction or result in the juvenile going unpunished if found guilty.
It is important to note that due to their circumstances, a juvenile may not be able to initially claim their status as a juvenile because of limited education and socio-economic challenges, making it difficult for them to navigate legal procedures. The involvement of the parents or legal guardians is necessary in the legal process concerning a juvenile in conflict with law.
Therefore, it becomes the duty and responsibility of the Magistrate to address this issue early in the proceedings.
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70248453/
This Article is written by Sujata N. Kharad, a student of PES’s Modern Law College, Pune, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
