Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 308 (RAJ)

Sattu Ram @ Satiya v. State of Rajasthan

2016-02-23

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
ORDER By way of this revision, the petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved of the udgment dated 1.11.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro in two parate appeals preferred on behalf of the petitioners under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the judgment dated 29.6.2012 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur in Cr.Original Case No.29/2002. An inquiry was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 366A, 376(2)(G), 302 and 404 IPC. The Board held the petitioners guilty of the offences alleged against them and directed that they be kept in the special juvenile home/fit institution declared by the State Government under Section 15 (1)(g) read with Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The appellate court affirmed the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by Juvenile Justice Board and so also the direction given by the Presiding Officer to send the petitioners to the special juvenile home/fit institution declared by the State Government for a period of three years after deducting the period spent by the petitioners in judicial custody and in the observation home during investigation and inquiry. Undisputedly, the petitioners were juveniles at the time of the incident, which allegedly took place in September 2001. By that time, the Juvenile Justice Board concluded the inquiry, the petitioners had crossed the age of juvenility by a comfortable margin. The Juvenile Justice Board at para 30 of its judgment observed that an order under Section 15 of the Act could even be passed against a person, who had crossed the age of juvenility during the inquiry and thereafter, ordered that the accused be sent to the special juvenile home/fit institution declared by the State Government. The appellate court confirmed the said judgment being aggrieved whereby, this revision has been preferred. The petitioners are presently confined at the special juvenile home. Ms. Manju Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Bhoop Ram Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1329 (1) and the order dated 4.3.2015 passed by this Court in S.B.Crl.Revision Petition No.135/2015 (Setha Ram Vs. The petitioners are presently confined at the special juvenile home. Ms. Manju Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Bhoop Ram Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1329 (1) and the order dated 4.3.2015 passed by this Court in S.B.Crl.Revision Petition No.135/2015 (Setha Ram Vs. The State of Raj.) and urged that as the petitioners had crossed the age of juvenility by a significant margin of almost five years by the date of conclusion of inquiry, the Juvenile Justice Board could not have directed them to be sent to the special home/fit institution. She thus urged that the revision be accepted and the order passed by the courts below directing that the petitioners be sent to the Special Home/Fit Institution should be set aside and they should be ordered to be released from confinement forthwith. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners’ counsel and contended that the petitioners were convicted by the Juvenile Justice Board for the heinous offence of rape and murder of a minor child and as such, the Board, after finding the petitioners guilty of the charges, was perfectly justified in directing that they be kept at the special home/fit institution for a period of three years. They thus urged that the revision is devoid of any merit and should be rejected. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. The Juvenile Justice Board can, upon concluding an inquiry against a delinquent juvenile, only pass such orders, which are prescribed by Sections 15 and 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which read as below: “15. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. The Juvenile Justice Board can, upon concluding an inquiry against a delinquent juvenile, only pass such orders, which are prescribed by Sections 15 and 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which read as below: “15. Order that may be passed regarding juvenile.— (1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offence, then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Board may, if it so thinks fit,— (a) allow the juvenile to go home after advice or admonition following appropriate inquiry against and counselling to the parent or the guardian and the juvenile; (b) direct the juvenile to participate in group counselling and similar activities; (c) order the juvenile to perform community service; (d) order the parent of the juvenile or the juvenile himself to pay a fine, if he is over fourteen years of age and earns money; (e) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or other fit person, on such parent, guardian or other fit person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require, for the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years; (f) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any fit institution for the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years; (g) make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of three years: Provided that the Board may, if it is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case, it is expedient so to do, for reasons to be recorded, reduce the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit. (2) The Board shall obtain the social investigation report on juvenile either through a probation officer or a recognised voluntary organisation or otherwise, and shall take into consideration the findings of such report before passing an order. (2) The Board shall obtain the social investigation report on juvenile either through a probation officer or a recognised voluntary organisation or otherwise, and shall take into consideration the findings of such report before passing an order. (3) Where an order under clause (d), clause (e) or clause (f)of sub-section (1) is made, the Board may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the juvenile and of the public, it is expedient so to do, in addition make an order that the juvenile in conflict with law shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not exceeding three years as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the juvenile in conflict with law: Provided that if at any time afterwards it appears to the Board on receiving a report from the probation officer or otherwise, that the juvenile in conflict with law has not been of good behaviour during the period of supervision or that the fit institution under whose care the juvenile was placed is no longer able or willing to ensure the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile it may, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, order the juvenile in conflict with law to be sent to a special home. (4) The Board shall while making a supervision order under sub-section (3), explain to the juvenile and the parent, guardian or other fit person or fit institution, as the case may be, under whose care the juvenile has been placed, the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to the juvenile, the parent, guardian or other fit person or fit institution, as the case may be, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer. 16. 16. Order that may not be passed against juvenile.— (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment for any term which may extend to imprisonment for life, or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing security: Provided that where a juvenile who has attained the age of sixteen years has committed an offence and the Board is satisfied that the offence committed is so serious in nature or that his conduct and behaviour have been such that it would not be in his interest or in the interest of other juvenile in a special home to send him to such special home and that none of the other measures provided under this Act is suitable or sufficient, the Board may order the juvenile in conflict with law to be kept in such place of safety and in such manner as it thinks fit and shall report the case for the order of the State Government. (2) On receipt of a report from a Board under sub-section (1), the State Government may make such arrangement in respect of the juvenile as it deems proper and may order such juvenile to be kept under protective custody at such place and on such conditions as it thinks fit: Provided that the period of detention so ordered shall not exceed in any case the maximum period provided under section 15 of this Act.” The amplitude and scope of power available to the Juvenile Justice Board for passing an order under these provisions operates only against a juvenile. In each subsection of the above provisions, the term Juvenile is repeatedly emphasized. By no stretch of imagination, the operation of these provisions can be extended to a person, who has crossed the age of juvenility as on the date of the decision. As per the clear language of the statute, it cannot be disputed that only a juvenile can be sent to a special home/fit institution after being found guilty in an inquiry. The special home or the fit institution are facilities created under the Juvenile Justice Act keeping the juveniles in protective custody so as to ensure their reformation. As per the clear language of the statute, it cannot be disputed that only a juvenile can be sent to a special home/fit institution after being found guilty in an inquiry. The special home or the fit institution are facilities created under the Juvenile Justice Act keeping the juveniles in protective custody so as to ensure their reformation. Allowing a person, who has crossed the age of juvenility to be kept in such an institution would be in direct conflict with the very purposes of the Juvenile Justice Act. There is an imminent likelihood that if the offender has crossed the age of juvenility and has continued with his criminal activities, then he/she could adversely influence the minds of the juveniles, who are housed in such facility upon being brought in direct contact with such a person. Such an action would be doing violence with the very purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Ram (supra) clearly held that a person, who has crossed the age of juvenility cannot be sent to the approved school, even if his conviction is upheld. Similar view was expressed by this Court in the case of Rashid @ Rasshid @ Rashidiya Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012(4) Cr.L.R (Raj.) 1786. In view of the above settled proposition of law, the petitioners, having crossed the age of 18 years cannot be confined in a special home/fit institution. The orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court in this regard are in total conflict with the specific provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the interpretation thereof as done by the Courts in the above referred judgments and thus, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the revisions deserve to be and are allowed. While upholding the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board and affirmed by the appellate court, the directions given by the courts below to send them to special home/fit institution for three years is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners are presently confined at the special home, Jodhpur. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Copy of this order be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for seeking a direction to circulate the order to all the Principal Magistrates, Juvenile Justice Boards in the State.