SATYA DEO @ BHOOREY versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 07-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
SATYA DEO @ BHOOREY
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No.860 of 2019)
OCTOBER 07, 2020
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
– ss.2(l), 7A, 15, 16(2), 20, 64, 69 – Scheme and applicability of
2000 Act – Appellant and co-accused persons convicted by trial
court in FIR dtd. 11.12.81 u/s.302 r/w s.34, IPC and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life – Confirmed by impugned judgment
– SLP in respect of co-accused persons dismissed, however in case
of appellant notice was issued on the plea of juvenility – Held:
Supreme court at this stage can decide and determine the question
of juvenility of the appellant, notwithstanding the fact that he was
not entitled to the benefit of being a juvenile on the date of the
offence, under the 1986 Act, and had turned an adult when the
2000 Act was enforced – As the appellant was less than 18 years of
age on the date of commission of offence on 11.12.81, he is entitled
to be treated as a juvenile and be given benefit as per the 2000 Act
– Further, in light of s.6, General Clauses Act r/w s.25 of the 2015
Act, an accused cannot be denied his right to be treated as a juvenile
when he was less than eighteen years of age at the time of commission
of the offence, a right which he acquired and has fructified under
the 2000 Act, even if the offence was committed prior to enforcement
of the 2000 Act on 01.04.2001– In terms of s.25 of the 2015 Act,
2000 Act would continue to apply and govern the proceedings which
were pending when the 2015 Act was enforced – Appellant has
undergone incarceration for more than 2 years thus far – Conviction
of the appellant is upheld, but sentence of life imprisonment set
aside – Matter remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board for passing
appropriate order/directions u/s.15 of the 2000 Act including the
question of determination and payment of appropriate quantum of
fine and compensation to be awarded to the family of deceased –
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection)
Act, 2015 – s.2, 25, 111 – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s.6 – Penal
Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34.
[2020] 12 S.C.R. 128
128
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
129
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
– Applicability of vis-à-vis 2015 Act – Discussed – Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection) Act of 2015.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – s.25 –
Scope and application of – Discussed – Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In light of the conflicting views expressed by
this Court on application of the 2000 Act to the pending
proceedings, vide decisions in Arnit Das v. State of Bihar and
Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, the matter was referred to
a Constitution Bench and decided in the case reported as Pratap
Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Another. Subsequent to the
decision of the Constitution Bench in Pratap Singh, several
amendments were made to the 2000 Act by the Amendment Act
No. 33 of 2006. These amendments are significant, but first
Section 2(l) of the 2000 Act will be referred which defines “juvenile
in conflict with law” In terms of clause (l) to section 2 of the 2000
Act, appellant, being less than 18 years of age, was juvenile on
the date of commission of offence. Section 20 of the 2000 Act,
which provides a special provision in respect of pending cases,
post the amendment vide Act 33 of 2006, Section 20 is a special
provision with respect to pending cases and begins with a limited
non-obstante or overriding clause notwithstanding anything
contained in the 2000 Act. Legislative intent clearly expressed
states that all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any
court on the date on which the 2000 Act came into force shall
continue before that court as if the 2000 Act had not been passed.
Though the proceedings are to continue before the court, the
section states that if the court comes to a finding that a juvenile
has committed the offence, it shall record the finding but instead
of passing an order of sentence, forward the juvenile to the
Juvenile Justice Board (Board) which shall then pass orders in
accordance with the provisions of the 2000 Act, as if the Board
itself had conducted an inquiry and was satisfied that the juvenile
had committed the offence. The proviso however states that the
Board, for any adequate and special reasons

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