KETANKUMAR GOPALBHAI TANDEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2013] 7 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 18-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 576 
KETANKUMAR GOPALBHAI TANDEL 
V. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 2004) 
JULY 18, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.) 
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF 
C CHILDREN) ACT, 2000: 
ss. 2(k), 2(1), 7-A, 20 and 49 - Accused convicted u/ss 302 
and 324 /PC aged less than 18 years on date of commission 
of offence (i.e. 6.5.1995) - Held: Is entitled to benefit of the 
Act - Conviction affirmed - However, the sentence awarded by 
trial court as affirmed by High Court set aside and matter sent 
to Juvenile Justice Board for imposing adequate sentence -
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Juvenile Justice (Care and 
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - rr. 12 and 98. 
E 
In the instant appeal arising out of the conviction and 
sentence of the appeliant for commission of offences 
punishable ulss 302 and 324 IPC, the question for 
consideration before the Court was: "whether or not the 
appellant, who was admittedly not a juvenile within the 
F meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 when offences 
were committed but had not completed 18 years of age, 
on that date, will be governed by the Juvenile Justice 
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and be 
declared as a juvenile in relation to the offences alleged 
G to have been committed by him." 
· Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
576 
H 
KETANKUMAR GOPALBHAI TANDEL v. STATE OF 577 
GUJARAT 
HELD: 
A 
In view of ss. 2(k), 2(1), 7-A, 20 and 49 of the Juvenile 
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 read 
with rr.12 and 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and 
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, all persons who were 
8 
below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of 
the offence ~ven prior to 1-4-2001, 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 the commencement of the 2000 Act and were 
undergoing sentences upon being convicted. In the C 
instant case, on the date of the commission of the offence 
i.e. 06.05.1995, the appellant was 17 years, 11 months and 
5 days, thus, less than 18 years, and, therefore, he has 
to be treated as a juvenile on the date of the crime and, 
as such, entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the D 
2000 Act read with the Rules.The order of conviction is 
affirmed. However, the sentence awarded by the trial 
court and confirmed by the High Court is set aside and 
the matter is sent to the Juvenile Justice Court for 
imposing adequate sentence. [para 6-8] [580-C-H] 
E 
Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another 2010 (5) 
SCR 137 = (2010) 5 sec 344 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2010 (5) SCR 137 
relied on 
para 5 
CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 556 of 2004. 
F ; 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2003 of the 
G 
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Crl. Appeal No. 366 of 
1997. 
S.C. Patel for the Appellant. 
H 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Hemantika Wahi, Sumita Hazarika Shubhada Deshpande 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The question that falls for 
B consideration in this appeal is whether or not the appellant, who 
was admittedly not a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile 
Justice Act, 1986 (for short 'the 1986 Act') when offences were 
committed but had not completed 18 years of age, on that date, 
will be governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection 
C of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the 2000 Acf) and be declared 
as a juvenile in relation to the offences alleged to have been 
committed by him. 
2. The appellant herein was convicted by the Additional 
0 Sessions Judge, Valsad (trial court) in Sessions Case No. 133 
of 1995 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and was 
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine 
of Rs1000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 
E 15 days for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and 
to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a 
fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo Simple 
Imprisonment for 7 days for an offence punishable under 
Section 324, · 1PC. Both the sentences were ordered to run 
F concurrently. The accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 366 
of 1997 before the High Court of Gujarat, the same was 
dismissed vide judgment dated 24.07.2003 against which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.