Summary
A man sentenced to death for the 2017 rape and murder of a child, with the sentence confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, raised a plea of juvenility before the Supreme Court; an inquiry by the trial court found from government school records that he was fifteen years and four months old on the date of the offence. A three-Judge Bench accepted the report, rejecting the State's belated demand for an ossification test, since school birth records rank first under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the State had raised no objection in the inquiry. Holding that a finding of juvenility renders only the sentence ineffective under Section 9(3) and does not vitiate the trial or conviction, the Court upheld the conviction, set aside the sentence, and ordered his immediate release since he had already served more than the three-year maximum under Section 18.
Issues
- Whether a plea of juvenility raised for the first time in the Supreme Court after confirmation of a death sentence can be decided on school records without an ossification test under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- Whether a finding that the accused was a child on the date of the offence vitiates the trial and conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, or affects only the sentence.
Provisions considered
- Section 94, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015Age is determined first from the school date of birth or matriculation certificate, then a municipal birth certificate, and only in their absence by ossification test; a government school birth certificate duly proved in the inquiry made a medical test unnecessary, and the State, having neither objected nor cross-examined, could not demand one. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Section 9(2) and (3), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015A claim of juvenility may be raised before any court at any stage, even after final disposal; if the person is found to have been a child, the court forwards him to the Board and any sentence passed is deemed to have no effect, but the provision does not render the conviction ineffective. (¶¶ 13, 14, 30, 33)
- Sections 18 and 25, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015For a child below sixteen who commits a heinous offence the maximum order is three years in a special home, so incarceration beyond three years is illegal; Section 25 continues pending proceedings in the court seised of them, showing the legislature did not intend trials to be nullified. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 32)
Held
- The inquiry report rested on documentary evidence and the testimony of the serving and retired headmasters and teachers of a government primary school, whose evidence there was no reason to doubt; the appellant was fifteen years, four months and twenty days old on the date of the incident. An ossification test gives only a broad estimate with a margin of one to two years and would not displace that finding. (¶¶ 5, 8, 9, 11, 12)
- Reviewing Jitendra Singh, Mahesh, Satya Deo, Raju and Ashok Kumar Mehra, the Court approved the view that the merits of a conviction may be tested and a conviction is not vitiated merely because the inquiry was not conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board; only the sentence attracts the 2015 Act, otherwise an offender who did not claim juvenility at trial would go scot-free, which is not the object of the Act. As the appellant is now over twenty, no reference to the Board or child care institution is required. (¶¶ 18, 20, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; conviction upheld but the death sentence and all sentences set aside as having no effect; the appellant, having undergone more than five years against a three-year maximum, to be released forthwith; Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment dated 15.11.2018 modified to that extent.