PRATAP SINGH V. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. (2005) 3 SCC 551

Admin

2 years ago

Spread the love

Citation	(2005) 3 SCC 551
Date of Judgment	02/02/2005
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Type	Criminal appeal
Appellant	Pratap Singh
Respondent	State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Bench	N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.N. VARIAVA, B.P. SINGH & H.K. SEMA
Referred	Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 Section- 20, Section- 69, Section- 2(k), Section- 3 Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 Section 2(h), Section 2(e) Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488 Umesh Chandra v State of Rajasthan, (1982) 2 SCC 202

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, the appellant (Pratap Singh) was accused of being one of the conspirators in the poisoning death of a person on December 31, 1998. An FIR was filed under Sections 364A, 302/201 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. Thereafter, a petition was filed on behalf of the appellant, claiming that he was a minor on the date of the alleged offense, i.e., December 31, 1998. Subsequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case to the Juvenile Court. After examining the school records, it was concluded that the appellant was below 16 years of age as of December 31, 1998. Following this, the appellant was granted bail.
The informant aggrieved by this, preferred an appeal. The judge referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Arnit Das v. State of Bihar and determined that the Juvenile Court had made an error by not considering the date of the appellant’s production before the Juvenile Court as the relevant date for deciding whether the appellant was a juvenile.
Aggrieved by this decision the appellant filed a Criminal Revision Petition with the High Court. The High Court, while disposing of the Revision, upheld the Arnit Das v. State of Bihar decision.
Conflict of decisions- A conflict in legal interpretation emerged between the rulings in Arnit Das v. State of Bihar and Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan. Specifically, Umesh Chandra v State of Rajasthan, provides that the date of occurrence of crime is the correct date for the determination of the age of the juvenile.
The key issue revolved around determining if the person in question met the criteria for being classified as a juvenile. This was because the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 and its successor, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000, had distinct definitions for juveniles. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (u/s 2(h)), males under 16 and females under 18 were considered juveniles, while the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (u/s 2(k)) categorized individuals under 18 as juveniles without differentiation based on gender.

ISSUES: The issues set forth by the court included:

(1) Whether the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, will be applied to cases initiated under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 that were still pending when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 came into effect on April 1, 2001.

(2) Whether the date of the alleged offense or the date when the individual is brought before a court or competent authority is to be used as the reference date to establish the age of the accused individual as a juvenile offender.

ARGUMENTS:

Appellant’s contentions-

On issue no. 1- It was contended that legal proceedings initiated under the 1986 Act would be governed by the 2000 Act, allowing individuals below 18 years at the time of the offense to benefit from juvenile classification as defined in the 2000 Act.

On issue no. 2- It was argued that the decision in Arnit Das v. State of Bihar cannot be considered as correctly setting the law. He refers to the objectives of the 1986 Act and asserts that the primary purpose of this Act is to reform and rehabilitate juvenile offenders. He argues that if the date of the offense is not considered as the reference point for determining the juvenile’s age, it would defeat the very purpose of the Act.

Respondent’s contentions-

On issue no. 1- It was argued that the provisions of the 2000 Act should not apply to a case or inquiry that was initiated and is currently pending under the provisions of the 1986 Act. He contends that the 2000 Act is not retrospective, meaning it does not apply to past cases or proceedings, and as a result, the 1986 Act continues to govern those pending matters.

On issue no. 2- It was argued that a comprehensive examination of the provisions of the 1986 Act and its overall structure indicates that the date for determining juvenile status only becomes relevant when a juvenile is presented before the authority or court, not at the time of the offense.

JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court resolved issue number one by determining that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 would apply to any pending legal proceeding initiated under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 in any court or authority, provided that the individual had not attained the age of eighteen years on April 1, 2001, when the 2000 Act became effective.
For issue number two, the Supreme Court ruled that the date used for determining the age of a juvenile should be the date of the offense and not the date when the individual is presented before an authority or in a court.
Consequently, the Juvenile Justice Act, of 2000 would have a prospective effect and not a retrospective effect except in cases where the person had not completed the age of eighteen years on the date of commencement of the Act. The provisions of the 1986 Act would apply to any other unresolved cases.

ANALYSIS:

The Juvenile Justice Act’s main goal is to care for, protect, treat, develop, and rehabilitate neglected and delinquent juveniles. Legal interpretation should favor the legislation’s objectives when it benefits the intended group, rather than hindering the legislative intent.

REFERENCES:

This Article is written by Anuja Malai of Raja Lakhamgouda Law College, Intern at Legal Vidhiya

Admin

PDF 📄