LexHARI RAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 623 r .... HARi RAM A V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Criminal Appeal No. 907 of 2009 MAY 5, 2009 B [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, .. 2000 - ss. 2(k}, 2(1), 7 A, 20 and 49 - Applicability of the Act - To the pending case of a juvenile on the date when the Act came into force - Held: In view of conjoint reading of ss. 2(k}, c 2(1), 7 A, 20 and 49 rlw rr. 12 and 98 of Juvenile Justice Rules, the provision Of the Act are applicable to such juvenile - The Act is applicable even in finally disposed of cases - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - rr. 12 and 98. D .,., Nature and object of the Act - Discussed - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 15(3), 39(e) and (f), 45 and 47 - c Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985. E Criminal Law - Claim of juvenility - If two views possible - Court to lean in favour of holding the offender to be a juvenile ~~ in borderline cases. Appellant-accused was arrested for commission of F offences ulss. 148, 302, 149, 3251149 and 323/149 l.P.C. The Trial Court determined the age of the appellant- accused to be below 16 years on the date of the commission of the offences and thus declaring him to be ' a juvenile directed the case to Juvenile Justice Board for G .. /•~ the trial of his case. Cross appeals were filed by the appellant-accused as well as the State. The appeal of the accused challenging the framing of charges was dismissed by High Court. Appeal of the State was allowed 623 H 624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A by High Court holding that he was not a juvenile because .;. according to his date of birth, as given by his father, his age was sixteen years and thirteen days and his medical examination by a medical board indicated his age at the relevant time to be between sixteen and seventeen years. B Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to Juvenile Justice Board, the Court HELD: 1.1 The very scheme of Juvenile Justice (Care .. c and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is rehabilitatory in nature and not adversarial which the courts are generally used to. The implementation of the said law, therefore, requires a complete change in the mind-set of those who are vested with the authority of enforcing the same, without D which it will be almost impossible to achieve the objects of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. [Para 2] [631-A-B] .... 1.2 The need to treat children differently from adults in relation to commission of offences had been under the consideration of the Central Government ever since India E achieved independence. With such object in mind, Parliament enacted the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, in order . to achieve the constitutional goals contemplated in Articles 15(3), 39(e) and (f), 45 and 47 of the Constitution imposing on the State a responsibility of ensuring that all ~ F the needs of children are met and that their basic human rights are fully protected. Subsequently, in keeping with certain international Conventions and in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration G of Juvenile Justice, 1985, commonly known as the Beijing Rules, the legislature enacted the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to attain certain .• objects. [Para 13] [634-F-H; 635-A-B] 1.3 It is clear from the provisions of the Juvenile H Justice Act, 2000, as amended by the Amendment Act, HARi RAM V STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR 625 '- 2006 and the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, the scheme of A the Act is to give children, who have, for some reason or the other, gone astray, to realise their mistakes, rehabilitate themselves and rebuild their lives and become useful citizens of society, instead of degenerating into hardened criminals. [Para 36] [649-A-C] B 2.1 On a conjoint reading of Sections 2(k), 2(1), 7 A, 20 ... ' and 49 r/w Rules 12 and 98, all persons who were below ,, the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to 1st April, 2001, would be treated as juveniles, even if the claim of juvenility was raised after c they had attained the age of 18 years on or before the date of commencement of the Act and were undergoing sentence upon bein
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.