A
B
c
D
E
F
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 310
DINA NATH @ DAULAT
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2008
APRIL 23, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000 - Juvenile - Determination of - Plea by appellant that
he was minor at the time of commission of offence - Held:
Certain documents have been filed to substantiate the plea,
but the applicability of the amended provision is to be
considered -
On facts, matter remitted to trial court for
adjudication of the plea.
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.16 of 2008
From the Judgement and Order dated 06.11.2007 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal
Appeal No. 89 of 1993
S.K. Bansal, Savitri Bansal, Roopak Bansal, D~basis
Misra, for the Appellant.
Naresh K. Sharma, for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was deii\lered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
The only point urged in support of the appeal is that the
appellant was minor within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice
G (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short "2000Act").
H
Reference is also made to the amendment of the expression
"juvenile in conflict with law" in terms of Section 2(1) as amended
by Act 33 of 2006 with effect from 22.8.2006. Reference is also
310
-
~
-
"'!
-
DINA NATH@ DAULAT V.
311
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
made to the explanation appended to Section 20 by the said
A
amendment. It is the stand of the appellant that on the date of
occurrence he wa!:; minor as his date of birth is 6.3.1973.
Learned counsel for the respondent states that this plea
was not raised either before the trial court or before the High
· Court by the appellant. The question about the applicability of B
2000 Act and the amendment thereto has to be tested on the
b.asis of the evidence. Though certain documents have been
filed to substantiate their stand that the appellant was a minor
on the date of occurrence i.e. on 15.6.1990, the applicability of
the amended provisions have to be considered. In the peculiar C
facts of this case, we set aside the impugned judgment of the
High Court and remit the matter to the trial court to decide only
the question as to whether the appellant was a juvenile on the
date of commission of the offence i.e. on 15.6.1990. We make
it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of D
the case. The trial court shall permit the accused appellant to
produce $UCh evidence as is considered necessary by him to
substantiate the aforesaid plea. Similar shall be the case in case
of prosecution.
As the matter is pending since long, let the adjudication
E
be done by the end of September, 2009. The accused~appellant
shall continue to remain in custody till the adjudication is done
by the triai court.
We make it clear that the impugned judgment is being set
F
aside only for the purpose of adjudicating the· plea raised by the
appellant that he was minor at the time of commission of the
offence.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex