JJ Act | "Heinous Offence" Is One Where Peremptorily Punishment Is Imprisonment Upto 7 Yrs Or More: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that when the accused had, while committing the offence of lurking house trespass by night or house-breaking by night, also voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death, then the convicting Court can per-emptorily impose a sentence of life imprisonment, upon the juvenile in conflict with law.The bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur further...
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that when the accused had, while committing the offence of lurking house trespass by night or house-breaking by night, also voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death, then the convicting Court can per-emptorily impose a sentence of life imprisonment, upon the juvenile in conflict with law.
The bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur further added that the punishment for simpliciter offence of lurking house trespass by night or house-breaking by night can be less than 7 years whereas, an "offence", is a "heinous offence", only when the imposable sentence, upon the convict, is per-emptorily statutorily contemplated to necessarily extend upto a term of 7 years or more.
Therefore, when only, and, with respect of a commission of a simpliciter offence of lurking house trespass by night or house-breaking by night rather the imposable punishment, upon the convict, may be less than 7 years, and, may thereupon empower the convicting Court to sentence him to a term which may be even less than 7 year, whereas, contrarily the meaning assigned to a "heinous offence", is an offence would rather become a "heinous offence", only when the imposable sentence, upon the convict, is per-emptorily statutorily contemplated to necessarily extend upto a term of 7 years or more, and, also thereupon, if so imposable upon the convict, hence the impugned verdicts would become interfered with.
The court was dealing with a case registered under Sections 460, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC, and, under Section 25 of Arms Act wherein the offences are alleged to be committed by two co-accused aged about 16 years.
The co-accused being juveniles in conflict with law, were to be tried by the Children's Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
FIR offences are alleged by the prosecution, to be "heinous offences", defined under Section 2(33) of the JJ Act. Consequently, the respondent-State contends that, the dis-affirmative concurrent verdicts under Section 19 of the Act, require to be upheld by this Court.
After considering the rival submission of the parties, the court noted that the accused have not only committed the simpliciter offence of lurking house trespass by night or house-breaking by night, but also, voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to person.
Therefore, the court noted that convicting Court becomes empowered to per-emptorily impose a sentence of life imprisonment, upon the juvenile in conflict with law.
Court further explained the meaning of "heinous offence" by stating that it is statutorily described to be one inwhich, the per-emptorily imposable punishment, upon the accused/juvenile in conflict with law, is imprisonment upto a term extending upto 7 years.
In sequel, the court noted that the petition offences are to be construed to be "heinous offence", and, the impugned order, and, transfer of the case to the Children's Court, being tried as an adult, is required to be sustained.
The court dismissed the instant petition finding it sans merit along with upholding impugned orders.
Case Title : Suhail Ahmed v. State of Haryana
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (PH) 249