Person Convicted For Rape-Murder Found To Be Juvenile : Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Sentence, Sustains Conviction

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the death sentence imposed on a convict for the rape and murder of a minor girl after he was found to be a juvenile at the time of the offence.

The convict had approached the Top Court after the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial court. While the appeal was pending in the Supreme Court, he filed an application claiming juvenility. The Supreme Court then asked the trial court to enquire about his claim of juvenility. The trial court reported that his date of birth was conclusively proved to be 25.07.2002. This meant that on the date of the offence, 15.12.2017, he was 15 years old.

Since the maximum sentence which can be imposed on a juvenile as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, is 3 years imprisonment, the Supreme Court set aside his death penalty and ordered him to be released, as he had already served out 5 years of imprisonment.

The Court however observed that a trial conducted and conviction recorded by the Sessions Court would not be held to be vitiated in law even though subsequently the person tried has been held to be a child.

It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, would be attracted, the bench of Justices B R Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol observed.

After the trial court reported about his juvenility, , the bench proceeded to consider these issues: Whether the trial itself would stand vitiated for lack of jurisdiction by the regular Sessions Court and it would be the JJB alone which could make an inquiry into the offence committed based upon the evidence led by the prosecution. If the inquiry has not been conducted by the JJB, then whether the entire proceedings need to be quashed or only the sentencing aspect would require consideration in accordance with the 2015 Act.?

The court noted that to subsection (3) of section 9 of the 2015 Act, the Court which finds that the person who committed the offence was a child on the date of commission of such offence would forward the child to the JJB for passing appropriate orders and sentence, if any, passed by the Court shall be deemed to have no effect.

"This does not specifically or even impliedly provide that the conviction recorded by any Court with respect to a person who has subsequently after the disposal of the case found to be juvenile or a child, would also lose its effect rather it is only the sentence if any passed by the Court would be deemed to have no effect...we are of the view that merits of the conviction could be tested and the conviction which was recorded cannot be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry was not conducted by JJB. It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the 2015 Act would be attracted and any sentence in excess of what is permissible under the 2015 Act will have to be accordingly amended as per the provisions of the 2015 Act. Otherwise, the accused who has committed a heinous offence and who did not claim juvenility before the Trial Court would be allowed to go scot-free. This is also not the object and intention provided in the 2015 Act. The object under the 2015 Act dealing with the rights and liberties of the juvenile is only to ensure that if he or she could be brought into the main stream by awarding lesser sentence and also directing for other facilities for welfare of the juvenile in conflict with law during his stay in any of the institutions defined under the 2015 Act.", the court observed.

The court thus upheld the conviction however set aside the death sentence.

"In the present case, the appellant is held to be less than 16 years, and therefore, the maximum punishment that could be awarded is upto 3 years. The appellant has already undergone more than 5 years. His incarceration beyond 3 years would be illegal, and therefore, he would be liable to be released forthwith on this count also," the Court said.

Case details

Karan @ Fatiya vs State of Madhya Pradesh | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 159 | CrA 572-573 OF 2019 | 3  March 2023 | Justices B R Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajat Mittal, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Singh, D.A.G. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, D.A.G. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shreyash Balaji, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv.

Headnotes

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 ; Section 9(3) - A trial conducted and conviction recorded by the Sessions Court would not be held to be vitiated in law even though subsequently the person tried has been held to be a child - It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the 2015 Act would be attracted and any sentence in excess of what is permissible under the 2015 Act will have to be accordingly amended as per the provisions of the 2015 Act. (Para 30-33)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 ; Section 18 - The JJB having found a child to be in conflict with law who may have committed a petty or serious offence and where heinous offence is committed, the child should be below 16 years, can pass various orders under clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) and also sub-section (2). However, the net result is that whatever punishment is to be provided, the same cannot exceed a period of three years and the JJB has to take full care of ensuring the best facilities that could be provided to the child for providing reformative services including 19 education, skill development, counselling and psychiatric support. (Para 16)

Death Penalty - Supreme Court set aside the death sentence imposed on a convict for the rape and murder of a minor girl after he was found to be a juvenile at the time of the offence.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment