SHILPA MITTAL versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 09-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
   [2020] 2 S.C.R. 478
478
SHILPA MITTAL
v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2020)
JANUARY 09, 2020
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015:
ss. 2 (33) and 15 – Commission of offence u/s. 304 IPC – By
a juvenile above 16 years and below 18 years of age – Juvenile
Justice Board held that the juvenile having committed a heinous
offence has to be tried as an adult – High Court held that since no
minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence in question, the
offence did not fall within the ambit of s. 2(33) and hence was not
a heinous offence – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: An offence
which does not provide a minimum sentence of 7 years cannot be
treated to be a heinous offence – Meaning of the words ‘heinous
offence’ cannot be expanded by removing the word ‘minimum’ from
the definition – However, the Act does not deal with the 4th category
of offences (viz. Offence where maximum sentence is more than 7
years imprisonment, but no minimum sentence of less than 7 years
is provided) – There is a gap in the legislation – The court cannot
fill the gap by saying that these offences should be treated as heinous
offences – The legislature should take a call in this matter – However,
till the Legislature takes the call, the court in exercise of power u/
Art. 142 of the Constitution directs that from the date the Act came
into force, all the 4th category offences shall be treated as ‘serious
offence’.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Correction of errors in legislation – Held: If the intention of
the legislature is clear from the objects and reasons of the statute,
the court can correct errors in the legislation and may write down
or omit/delete/add words to serve the purpose of legislation – But
when intention of legislature is not clear, the Court cannot add or
subtract words from the statute.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
479
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. A bare reading of Section 2(12), 2(13) and 2(35)
of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
clearly shows that a child or a juvenile is a person who has not
completed 18 years of age, and a child in conflict with law is a
child/juvenile who commits an offence when that child/juvenile
has not completed 18 years of age.  ‘Petty offences’ have been
defined under Section 2(45) to mean offences for which the
maximum punishment provided under any law including the IPC,
is imprisonment up to 3 years.  ‘Serious offences’ means, offences
for which punishment under any law is imprisonment between 3-
7 years. ‘Heinous offences’ have been defined to mean offences
for which the minimum punishment under any law is imprisonment
for 7 years or more.  This was a departure from the previous
legislation on the subject where the offences had not been
categorised as heinous or serious. Section 14 of the Act of 2015
lays down the procedure to be followed by the Juvenile Justice
Board while conducting an enquiry regarding a child in conflict
with law under these different categories. [Paras 13 and 14][488E-
H]
2. The inquiry for serious offences has to be disposed of by
following the procedure for trial in summons cases under Cr.PC.
As far as heinous offences are concerned if the child is below 16
years then the procedure prescribed for serious offences is to be
followed; but if the child is above 16 years then assessment in
terms of Section 15 has to be made. The above categorisation
has been done with a purpose which is reflected in Section 15 of
the Act of 2015.  [Paras 15 and 16][489 F-G]
3. Section 15 provides that if the child offender has
committed a heinous offence, the Juvenile Justice Board shall
conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to the mental and
physical capacity of such child to commit such offence, the ability
of the child to understand the consequence of the offence and
the circumstances in which the said offence was allegedly
committed.  The Board is entitled to take the help of experienced
psychologists, psychosocial workers or other experts in the field.
The explanation makes it clear that the preliminary assessment
is not to go into the merits of the trial or the allegations against
SHILPA MITTAL v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
the child.  The inquiry is conducted only to assess the capacity of
the child to commit and understand the consequence of the
off

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