The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karan @ Fatiya Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh set aside the death sentence awarded to the rape and murder convict who was later on found to be a minor at the time of the commission of an offence and opined that the law itself supports that person who is established as a child on the date of the commission of the offence, can avail of the benefits provided under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “JJ Act”), even after the case has been decided and the person later attains majority.
It was noted that the legislature was intended to benefit a person who was declared to be a child on the day of the offence exclusively about the punishment component of the law. If the conviction was to be rendered ineffective Section 9 of the JJ Act would have completely excluded the regular Sessions Court's jurisdiction and Section 25 of the JJ Act would have provided that any trial that was ongoing when it was determined that the person being tried was a child should be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board and declared null and void. Instead, under section 25 of the 2015 Act, it is provided that any proceeding pending before any Board or Court on the date of commencement of the 2015 Act shall be continued in that Board or Court as if this Act had not been enacted.
It was propounded that the conviction could be tested and cannot be said to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry was not conducted by Juvenile Justice Board. The sentencing will have to be amended as per the limitations under the JJ Act.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant was charged for the offences under Sections 363, 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Sections 5(m)/6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”), and Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Trial Court awarded a death sentence to the Appellant and the same was affirmed by the High Court.
During the pendency of the Appeal, the Appellant moved an application claiming juvenility and the benefits available under the provisions of the JJ Act. The Court directed the Trial Court to submit the report after conducting an inquiry as to whether the Appellant was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence or not. According to the report submitted by the Trial Court, the Appellant was 15 years 04 months, and 20 days of age at the time of the commission of the offence.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was contended that as per Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, the punishment imposed cannot be implemented. It was also contended that the Appellant had already undergone the sentence of 5 years and as per Section 18 of the JJ Act, a juvenile below 16 years of age even if committed a heinous offence, the maximum offence that can be awarded is 3 years stay in a special home. Hence, the Appellant should be released.
Contentions of the State:
It was contended that the only alternative left was for a medical board to conduct an ossification test on the Appellant to establish the correct age as the records submitted during the Trial Court's investigation are not as per Section 94 of the JJ Act.
Observations of the Court:
The contention raised by the State to conduct an ossification test was rejected by the Hon’ble Court as the birth certificate of the Appellant was available and that too from a Government primary school. It was ruled that there was no cause to question its accuracy and since the birth certificate was available, there was no reason to conduct a test.
It was remarked that the State did not raise the plea of ossification test before the Trial Court when an enquiry was being conducted. Further, the test can simply give a broad assessment of age, exact age cannot be determined from this. Therefore, the result of the said test will not have any bearing on the report.
Analysing Section 9 of the JJ Act, the Top Court opined that a person accused of committing an offence has the right to claim that he was a child on the date of the alleged offence. If such a claim is made, the Court concerned must conduct an investigation and obtain any additional evidence that may be required in addition to the affidavit to determine the age of the Accused person.
It was expounded that the law itself supports that person who is established as a child on the date of the commission of the offence, can avail of the benefits provided under JJ Act, even after the case has been decided and the person later attains majority.
In the present case, the Appellant was found to be less than 16 years and undergoing already more than 5 years of sentencing, the Bench noted that the Appellant was liable to be released forthwith.
The Apex Court further answered a legal question i.e., whether once the Accused has been declared as a child, what would be the status of the Trial, conviction, and sentence?
It was expounded that the law itself supports that person who is established as a child on the date of the commission of the offence, can avail of the benefits provided under JJ Act, even after the case has been decided and the person later attains majority.
In the present case, the Appellant was found to be less than 16 years and undergoing already more than 5 years of sentencing, the Bench noted that the Appellant was liable to be released forthwith.
The Apex Court further answered a legal question i.e., whether once the Accused has been declared as a child, what would be the status of the Trial, conviction, and sentence?
It was propounded that the conviction could be tested and cannot be said to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry was not conducted by Juvenile Justice Board. The sentencing will have to be amended as per the limitations under the JJ Act.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant but set aside the sentence imposed.
The decision of the Court:
With the above directions, the present appeals stood partly allowed.
Case Title: Karan @ Fatiya Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 572 - 573 of 2019
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 177 SC
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Rajat Mittal
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Sunny Choudhary
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments