LexRANJIT SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 332 .. , A RANJIT SINGH II. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1458 of 2008) B SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 •· [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - s. 20 - Applicability of - Accused tried for commission c of offence under /PC in 1993 - Age of accused more than 16 years on date of occurrence - Held: s. 20 deals with cases related to period when 1986 Act was in force - It provides that proceadings shall continue as if Act of 2000 is not in existence - Even if the definition of 'iuvenile' has undergone change by D fixing age to be 18 years, proceedings shall continue on the footing that accused was juvenile under 1986 Act - Thus, accused is not legally permissible to take the applicable age to be 18 years - Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. In year 1993, the appellant-accused was tried for the E commission of offences punishable under IPC. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant u/s 302 and 452 IPC. The appellant contended before the courts below that he was a juvenile in terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, thus, should F be tried under the 2000 Act and in any event, Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was applicable. However, the courts below did not record any definite conclusion. Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that though material was G placed before the courts below to show that the accused appellant was a juvenile, but it did not substantially deal with that aspect. Respondent-State contended that even according H 332 RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 333 "' .. to the case of the accused-appellant, he was about 17 A years of age at the time of occurrence and, thus, 1986 Act had no application to him; that for bringing the applicability of 1986 Act, the accused should have been 16 years or less in age at the time of occurrence; that the age of the accused-appellant was more than 16 years at the time of B occurrence; that by the 2000 Act, age has been increased to 18 years; and thats. 20 of the 2000 Act was relevant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and c Protection of Children) Act, 2000 does not in any way help the appellant. It deals with cases where proceedings related to a period when 19a6 Act was in force. What Section 20 provides is that the· proceedings shall continue as if the Act is not in existence. To put it differently, even D ~ if under the Act, the definition of "juvenile" has undergone a change by fixing the age to be 18 years the proceedings shall continue on the footing that accused was a juvenile under the 1986 Act. What appellant contends is to reverse the situation i.e. take the applicable age to be 18 years. E That is not legally permissible. (Para 8) [336 F-G] Jameel v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (2) SCALE 32 - relied on. Case Law Reference --'\ F 2007 (2) SCALE 32 relied on Para 9 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal . No. 1458 of 2008 From the final Judgment and order dated 14/2/2007 of G the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 682-DB of 1997 " ;w,. Sanjay Rathi, Jamshed Bey, Neha Gaur and Parmanand Gaur for the Appellant. H 334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. . " A Devinder Pratap Singh, A.A.G., Naresh Bakshi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. B 2. The only point urged in support of the appeal was that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of commission of the offence and, therefore, the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short "the Act") had application to the facts of this case. c 3. It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects in detail in view of the limited controversy raised. The appellant along with three co-ar;cused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 452/302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 D (in short 'IPC') for the murder of one Wazir Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') on 1.8.1993. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, Haryana, convicted accused Ranjit Singh and Jai Singh for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 452 of IPC and each accused was E sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.