LexDAYA NAND versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 173 DAYA NANO A v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2011) JANUARY 7, 2011 B [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: s.2(k), 2(1), 7-A, 20 and 49- Determination ofjuvenility - Held: All persons below the age of 18 years on the date of c commission of offence would be treated as juveniles, even if ,- the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of 18 years on or before the date of commencement of the 2000 Act and were undergoing sentence upon being convicted - Accordingly, a juvenile who has not completed D. 18 years on the date of commission of the offence is entitled to the benefits of the 2000 Act, as if the provisions of s.2(k) had always been in existence even during the operation of the 1986 Act - In the instant case, appellant was convicted uls.376 rlw s.511, /PC - His age at the time of commission E of offence was about 16 years, therefore, he is held to be a juvenile, within the meaning of s.2(1) of the amended 2000 Act ~ - He cannot be kept in prison to undergo the sentence - The sentence imposed is set aside and he is directed to be released from prison - He is further directed to be produced F before the Juvenile Justice Board, for passing appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of 2000 Act - Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - s.2(h) - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 - ff.12 and 98- Penal + Code, 1860- s.376 rlw s.511. G The appellant was convicted under Section 376 r.w. Section 511, IPC, however, his plea of juvenility was accepted by the trial court. The Session Court reversed the findings as regards the juvenility of the appellant. The ,. . 173 H 174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. . A High court upheld the order of the Session Court. In the instant appeal, the appellant again raised the plea of juvenility. B Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. On the date of occurrence i.e. 2.2.1998, the age of the appellant was 16 years 5 months and 19 days. In the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, a 'juvenile' was defined under section 2(h) to mean a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years or a girl who has not attained C the age of 18 years. On the basis of the finding of the Session Court that on the date of occurrence, the appellant was over 16 years of age, he did not come within the definition of 'juvenile' under the 1986 Act. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was replaced by the Juvenile D Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 that came into force on April 1, 2001. The 2000 Act defined 'juvenile or child' in section 2(k) to mean a person who has not completed eighteenth years of age. Section 69 of the 2000 Act, repealed the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. E Section 20 of 2000 Act also contained a provision in regard to cases that were pending when it came into force and in which the accused at the time of commission of offence was below 18 years of age but above sixteen years of age (and hence, not a juvenile under the 1986 F Act) and consequently who was being tried not before a juvenile court but a regular court. [Paras 9, 10 and 11] [179-E-H; 180-A-B] 1.2. A Constitution Bench of this Court h~ld In *Pratap Singh case that section 20 of the 2000 Act would apply G only to cases in which the accused was below 18 years of age on April 1, 2001, the date on which the 2000 Act came into force but it would have no application in case the accused had crossed the age of 18 years on the date of coming into force of the 2000 Act Applying the ratio H of *Pratap Singh case, the appellant would not be entitled DAYA NANO v. STATE OF HARYANA 175 to the protections and benefits of the provisions of the A 2000 Act, since he was over 18 years of age on April 1, 2001, when the 2000 Act carne into force. But the matter did not stop at that stage. After this Court's decision in ... Pratap Singh (and presumably as a result of that decision) a number of amendments of a very basic nature were B introduced in the 2000 Act w.e.f. August 22, 2006 by Act i 33 of 2006. The effect of the amendments in the 2000 Act ~ were considered by this Court in ** Hari Ram case wherein it was held that the Constitution Bench decision in * Pratap Singh's case was no longer relevant since it was c rendered under the unamended Act. It was held in **Harl .- Ram case that a conjoint reading of Sect
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.