DHARAMBIR versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 137 · Decided: 23-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN, J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 5 S.C.R. 137 
DHARAMBIR 
v. 
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.860 of 2010) 
APRIL 23, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN AND J.M. PANCHAL, 
A 
B 
.] 
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 
2000 -
<\S. 2(k), 2(1), 7 A, 20 and 49 -
Relevant date for 
determ111mg the applicability of the Act of 2000 - Murder and C 
attempt to murder - Incident occurred in 1991 - Accused-
appel/ant aged 16 years and 9 months at that time and hence 
not a juvenile within meaning of the Act of 1986 - Conviction 
and sentence of appellant by regular court - Meanwhile, Act 
of 2000 came into force w.e.f 1st April, 2001 -
Claim of D 
appellant that he was juvenile within meaning of the Act of 
2000 since he had not completed 18 years of age at the time 
of commission of the said offences -
Tenability of - Held: 
Tenable - All persons below the age of 18 years on the date 
I 
of commission of offence, even prior to 1st April, 2001, would 
E 
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 the commencement of the Act of 2000, and were 
undergoing sentences upon being convicted - However, since 
the maximum period of detention under the Act of 2000 was 
F 
for three years and appellant had already undergone an actual 
period of sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 4 days and is 
now c=iged about thirty five years, his case not forwarded to the 
Juvenile Justice Board concerned for passing sentence in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2000 - Conviction 
G 
of appellant sustained but quantum of sentence reduced to 
the period already uridergone - Juvenile Justice (Care and 
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - rr. 12 and 98 - Juvenile 
Justice Act, 1986. 
137 
H 
138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant allegedly committed tt~e murder of a close 
relative and attempted to murder his brother. On the date 
of commission of the said off~nces i.e. on 25th August, 
1991, appellant was aged 16 years, 9 months and 8 days. 
He was thus not a juvenile Wi.ithin the meaning of the 
B Juvenib Justice Act, 1986 when the offences were 
commit~ed. Appellant was convicted by the regular trial 
court u/s. 302 and 307 r/w s. 34 of IPC. The conviction 
was upheld by the High Court. 
Before this Court, the appellant contended at thE1 
C very outset that since at the time of commission of tile 
said offences, he had not completed 18 years of age, he 
was a juvenile within the meaning of s.2(k) of the Juvenile 
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 
D 
Part~y allowing the appeal, the Court 
H~(D: 1.1. The issue with regard to the date, relevant 
for determining the applicability of either of the two Acts, 
i.e. Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and Juvenile Justice (Care 
E and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 insofar as the age 
of the accused, who claims to be a juvenile/child, is 
concerned, is no longer res integra. [Para 7] [144-D] 
1.2. In a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court, 
· it has been held that the relevant date for determining the 
F age of the accused, who claims to ~e a juvenile/child, 
would be the date on whicJ::! the offence has been 
committed and not the date when he is produced before 
the authority or in the court. In the same judgment, the 
Bench also dealt with the question as to whether the Act 
G ··of 2000 will be applicable in a case where proceedings 
were initiated under the 1986 Act and were pending when 
the .Ae<tof 2000 was enacted with effect from 1st April, 
2001. Taking into consideration the provisions of 
Sections 3 and 20 along with the definition of "juvenile" 
H in Section 2(k) ,of the Act of 2000, as contrasted with the 
DHARAMBIR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 
139 
definition of a male juvenile in Section 2(h) of the 1986 
A 
Act, by majority, it was held that the Act of 2000 would 
be applicable in a pending proceeding in any Court/ 
Authority initiated under the 1986 Act and is pending 
when the Act of 2000 came into force and the person 
concerned had not completed 18 years of age as on 1st s 
April, 2001. In other words, it was held that a male 
offender, against whom proceedings had been initiated 
under the 1986 Act in any Court/Authority and had not 
completed the age of 18 years as on 1st April, 2001, 
would be governed by the provisions of the Act of 2000. c 
The said decision led to substitution of Section 2(1); the 
insertion of Section 7 A and Proviso and E

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.