Supreme Court invokes Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 to free man who was 12 years old when he committed crime in 1981

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 can be applied to an offence that took place when the Children’s Act, 1960 governed the field [Hansraj vs State of UP]..A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih said there was no provision in the 1960 Act that restricted the Court from granting relief under later enactments.“No provision in the 1960 Act has been brought to our notice that creates a legal impediment and, thus, limits our authority to grant relief to the petitioner,” the Court said.Hence, it ordered the release of a person convicted for a murder committed in 1981, considering that he was only 12 years old at the time of the incident..The case arose from an incident in Sultanpur district in which the petitioner, aged 12 years and 5 months at the time, was convicted of murder. The sessions court found him guilty of murder. However, having found that he was only 16 years old on the date of commission of the crime, it held that he was entitled to the benefit of the Children's Act, 1960. Accordingly, instead of sending the petitioner to jail, he was directed to be kept in a children’s home in accordance with the provisions of the 1960 Act to give him a chance to reform himself.All the convicts, including the petitioner, challenged the conviction and sentence before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court passed its verdict in April 2000, acquitting all the appellants.The State then filed an appeal against the same before the Supreme Court.By a judgment and order dated May 8, 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the order of acquittal and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the sessions court. The concluding paragraph of the order also restored the order of the sessions court with respect to the petitioner.The petitioner then absconded and could be arrested only on May 19, 2022. He was then lodged in Agra Central Jail.He proceeded to approach the Supreme Court by way of a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking release from prison.The question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended by Act 33 of 2006Advocate Parinav Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner has been behind bars for more than 3 years and 8 months despite being a juvenile who is entitled to the benefit of the JJ Act, 2000. According to him, the maximum period of detention of a juvenile is 3 years as per Section 15(1)(g) and detention in excess of such period of 3 years would amount to an illegal detention. This, being in clear breach of the petitioner’s right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, he ought to be immediately released from illegal detention.Advocate Neeraj Shekar, appearing for the State, contended that the date of occurrence of the crime was November 2, 1981, and therefore, the provisions of the 1960 Act would be applicable and not the JJ Act, 2000.The Bench recorded that under Section 7-A of the 2000 Act, a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage of proceedings, even after the case has been finally decided by the Supreme Court. “Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000, relevant for the present case, permits raising of a plea of juvenility in any court at any stage and even after final disposal of a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution,” the Court said..On a plain reading of Section 7A, courts are under an obligation to consider the plea of juvenility and to grant appropriate relief if it is found that the convict was a juvenile on the date of the offence, the Court held.This statutory mandate requires courts to grant suitable relief once it is undisputed that the person was a child when the offence occurred..The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had already spent more than three years in custody. It held that such confinement was unlawful and violated the constitutional right to personal liberty.“Since there is no quarrel with the fact that the petitioner was a child at the time of commission of the offence and the petitioner having been behind bars for more than 3 years, his liberty has been curtailed not in accordance with procedure established by law. Breach of the right guaranteed by Article 21 is writ large,” the Court opined. The Bench said that the continued incarceration was contrary to the procedure established by law and could not be sustained..The apex court also noted the original trial had violated Section 24 of the 1960 Act, which barred joint trials of children with adult co-accused.“We have also not been shown by Mr. Shekar why provisions contained in Section 24 of the 1960 Act – prohibiting joint trial of a child with a person who is not a child – was observed in the breach,” the judgment stated. The Court noted that this safeguard had not been followed when the petitioner was tried along with adults nearly four decades earlier..The Bench observed that the reformative direction given by the trial court in 1984 to keep the petitioner in a children's home could not now serve its intended purpose because of the passage of time.“The petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than the period permissible in law. Moreover, the purpose for which the Sessions Court directed the petitioner to be kept in a children’s home is no longer feasible now,” the Court said. .Hence, the Court directed the petitioner's release from jail after concluding that his detention was illegal and that he had already served more than the period allowed under law.The Court also directed the Senior Superintendent of Central Jail of Varanasi to act on a downloaded copy of the judgment without waiting for a certified copy..Petitioner Hansraj was represented by advocates Parinav Gupta, Pardeep Gupta, Mansi Gupta, Rakshit Rathi, Anuj Kumar Garg and Vipin Gupta.Advocates Neeraj Shekhar, Yashveer Singh, and Shivansh Pundir and Rohit K Singh appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]