23 years after murder, Supreme Court acquits woman who was juvenile at the time of offence

The Supreme Court recently acquitted an accused in a murder case from 2000 after finding that she was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident [Pramila vs State of Chhattisgarh]..A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that on the date of occurrence of the event, the appellant Pramila was a juvenile aged 17 and should have been dealt with under Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act."Under clause (h) of Section 2 of the 1986 JJ Act, a ‘juvenile’ has been defined to mean a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years. Thus, on the date of occurrence of the offence, the appellant was a juvenile. Therefore, the appellant ought to have been dealt with in accordance with Section 21 of the 1986 JJ Act. The maximum action which could have been taken against the appellant was of sending her to a special home," the Court said. In case of a girl of sixteen years of age, she could have been sent to a special home for a period of not less than three years. As per Section 22(1) of the 1986 JJ Act, there was a prohibition on sentencing a juvenile to undergo imprisonment. There is a similar provision under Section 16 of the 2000 JJ Act, the Court further said.It also took note of the fact that the woman had already undergone 8 years of her life sentence and remitting her case to the Juvenile Justice Board now would serve no purpose.Hence, it allowed the appeal and ordered her release. .The accused was convicted in 2003 for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Chhattisgarh High Court confirmed the same in 2010 and the top court admitted the accused's appeal in 2012.Before the Supreme Court, the accused took a plea of 'juvenility'.The bench, subsequently, went through records to ascertain her date of birth, and found that she was 17 at the time of the murder. "On the date of occurrence of the offence, the appellant was a juvenile …The maximum action which could have been taken against the appellant was of sending her to a special home,” it observed before setting aside the life sentence and conviction..Senior Advocates Rajesh Pandey and Sumant Bharadwaj and advocates Abhishek Pendey, Mahesh Pandey, Chandrika Prasad Mishra, Prashant Kumar Umrao, Nishi Prabha Singh, Prashasti Singh, Swati Surbhi, Mahesh Kumar Tiwari, Lalit Allawadhi, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj and Tanay Hari Har Lal appeared for the woman.Advocates Gautam Narayan, Asmita Singh, Harshit Goel, KV Vibu Prasad, and Sujay Jain represented the Chhattisgarh government..[Read Order]