LI Network
Published on: January 25, 2024 at 12:24 IST
In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court acquitted a woman who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for a murder committed 23 years ago after determining that she was a juvenile at the time of the offense in 2000.
Overturning the decisions of both the High Court and the Trial Court, the bench, comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized that the accused was a juvenile when the offense occurred, and therefore, the Juvenile Justice Act precluded the imposition of any punishment.
“The appellant was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence of the offense… The maximum action which could have been taken against the appellant was of sending her to a special home.”
The accused had already served more than eight years of imprisonment as a juvenile.
To provide context, the accused, Pramila, had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for a murder that took place on June 15, 2000. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, she appealed to the High Court, which upheld the sentence. The present appeal to the Supreme Court challenged the High Court’s order.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, the accused raised the issue of her juvenile status at the time of the offense. After reviewing documents verifying her date of birth, the court confirmed that she was indeed a juvenile when the offense occurred.
“Therefore, we have to proceed on the footing that on the date on which the incident constituting the offense took place, the age of the appellant was less than 18 years.”
The Court pointed out that the case fell under the old Juvenile Justice Act of 1986, which defined a juvenile girl as someone below the age of eighteen.
“The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, “the 2000 JJ Act”) was admittedly not in force when the incident occurred. Therefore, the case will be governed by the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short, “the 1986 JJ Act”). Under clause (h) of Section 2 of the 1986 JJ Act, a ‘juvenile’ has been defined to mean a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years. Thus, on the date of occurrence of the offense, the appellant was a juvenile.”
The appellant’s age at the time of the offense was 17 years, 09 months, and 14 days.
The Court emphasized that sentencing the accused to life imprisonment was unjustified, as the maximum punishment under the Juvenile Justice Act was sending her to a special home for up to three years.
“In the case of a girl of sixteen years of age, she could have been sent to a special home for a period of not less than three years. As per Section 22(1) of the 1986 JJ Act, there was a prohibition on sentencing a juvenile to undergo imprisonment. There is a similar provision under Section 16 of the 2000 JJ Act.”
Considering the eight years already served by the accused, the court decided against sending her before the Juvenile Justice Board.
“The present Appeal must succeed and the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2010, passed by the High Court and the impugned judgment and order dated 30th June, 2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, are hereby quashed and set aside only insofar as the appellant (accused no.2) is concerned.”