Punishment Part Of 'Reintegration Process' With Society: Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Reduce Sentence Of Juvenile Convict

While refusing to reduce the sentence of a man, convicted under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code when he was a juvenile, the Jharkhand High Court has observed that one of the prime concerns of the juvenile justice system is to ensure that the delinquent juvenile is also prevented from reoffending, thus the sentence period is a part of the reintegration and thus must be completed.

In the matter, the juvenile-petitioner was sentenced to three years of detention, whereby he has completed two years and now seeking a reduction for the remaining one year. Dismissing the plea Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary noted,

'In fact, the punishment three years itself is a part of the process of reintegration of the petitioner with society. For that purpose, the petitioner has to take responsibility for his actions being illegal."

Background

Through the revision application, the petitioner had challenged an earlier judgment confirming his conviction under Section 304B read with Section 34, thus sending him to three-year detention at a Special Home. Advocate Pankaj Kumar Dubey, appearing for the petitioner, informed the Court that the present revision is only limited to the sentence period and does not contest the conviction. He referred to a catena of Supreme Court and Jharkhand High Court decisions to argue for reducing the sentence.

On the other hand, the State argued that concurrent findings had been recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate Court. Thus, no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction.

Findings of the Court

On thoroughly examining the entire case and previous orders, the Court held that the petitioner has remained in detention for more than 02 years, out of the total detention period of 03 years. The present age of the petitioner is 34 years; the Court cannot lose sight of the manner in which the offence has been committed by the petitioner, and therefore, reducing the punishment of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.

The Court noted,

"This Court finds that considering the nature of offence involved in the present case and the manner in which it has been committed, the petitioner does not deserve any reduction in the punishment. Accordingly, the period of detention of the petitioner is also maintained."

The Court referred to the case of Salil Bali v. Union of India, where it has been held that the essence of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Rules framed thereunder in 2007, is restorative and not retributive, providing for rehabilitation and reintegration of children in conflict with the law into mainstream society. In light of the amended position under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the Supreme Court made it clear that even if a juvenile attains the age of eighteen years within one year, he would still have to undergo a sentence of three years, which could spill beyond the period of one year when he attained majority.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgments of the lower Court and the Juvenile Justice Board.

Case Title: Arun Kumar Prajapati v. State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 2

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order