Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (“the J.J. Act, 2000”) – whether the appellant was ‘a juvenile’ within the meaning of the term ‘juvenile’ as defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (“the J.J. Act, 2000”) when the offence was committed and whether the plea of juvenility can be raised by him at this stage. Apex court held that Proviso to Section 7-A states that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the J.J. Act, 2000 and the rules made thereunder even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of the J.J. Act, 2000. =
The case of the appellant is that as on 2/9/1997, when the
offence was committed, he was 17 years and 4 months’ old. Section 2(k) of
the J.J. Act, 2000 defines ‘juvenile’ as a person who has not completed 18
years of age. Section 2(l) defines ‘juvenile in conflict with law’ as a
juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed
18 years of age as on the date of commission of such offence.=
the appellant was a juvenile when
the offence was committed and, hence, he cannot be convicted. =
admittedly the plea of juvenility was not
raised by the appellant in the trial court. It was for the first time
raised in the High Court while the appeal was being argued. The High Court
has noted in the impugned judgment that the plea of juvenility was neither
raised before the trial court, nor raised in the memo of appeal before the
High Court. The High Court noted that no application was filed before the
High Court seeking permission to adduce evidence to establish that the
appellant was a juvenile. The High Court, in the circumstances, rejected
the plea.
whether the appellant was ‘a juvenile’ within the meaning of the term
‘juvenile’ as defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 (“the J.J. Act, 2000”) when the offence was committed
and whether the plea of juvenility can be raised by him at this stage.
Proviso to Section 7-A states that
a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be
recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such
claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the J.J.
Act, 2000 and the rules made thereunder even if the juvenile has ceased to
be so on or before the date of commencement of the J.J. Act, 2000. =
It is a settled position in law on a fair consideration of Section
2(k), 2(l), 7-A, 20 and 49 of the J.J. Act, 2000 read with Rules 12 and 98
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (“the
said Rules”) that all persons who were below the age of 18 years on the
date of commission of the offence even prior to 1/4/2001, which is the date
of commencement of J.J. Act, 2000 could be treated as juveniles even if the
claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of 18 years
on or before date of the commencement of the J.J. Act, 2000 which is
1/4/2001 and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted (See Ketankumar
Gopalbhai Tandel v. State of Gujarat[1]). Therefore, the claim of
juvenility can be raised by the appellant.
Age determination inquiry” contemplated under Section 7-A of the Act
read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and
in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent
certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or
equivalent certificates, the court needs to obtain the date of birth
certificate from the school first attended other than a play school. Only
in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of
birth certificate from the school first attended, the court needs to obtain
the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a
panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents).
Thus in cases where
documents mentioned in Section 12(a)(i) to (iii) of the J.J. Act, 2000 are
unavailable or where they are found to be fabricated or manipulated, it is
necessary to obtain medical report for age determination of the accused.
In
this case the documents are available but they are, according to the
police, fabricated or manipulated and therefore as per the above
observations of this Court if the fabrication is confirmed, it is necessary
to go for medical report for age determination of the appellant. Delay
cannot act as an impediment in seeking medical report as Section 7-A of the
J.J. Act, 2000 gives right to an accused to raise the question of
juvenility at any point of time even after disposal of the case.
advocatemmmohan 
Discussion
Comments are closed.