The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 7th October 2020, in the matter of Satyadeo @ Bhoorey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, observed that even if the offence was committed prior to 01.04.2001, in light of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act read with Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, an accused cannot be denied his right to be treated as a juvenile when he was less than 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence.
Satya Deo and two others were convicted by the Trial Court and were sentenced to life imprisonment (on 11.12.1981). The Allahabad High court dismissed about 36 years later on 20.04.2018. [They served two years imprisonment before the HC granted them bail]. The Trio were accused of killing one Vimla Saran.
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions filed by co-accused against Allahabad High Court judgment, but issued notice in the case of Satya Deo on the plea of juvenility. The Trial court was directed to conduct an inquiry to ascertain if Satya Deo was a juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e. 11.12.1981. The report filed before the Apex Court stated that he was 16 years 7 months and 26 days of age on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 11.12.1981. However, the report concluded that he was not a juvenile as per the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 as he was more than 16 year of age on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 11.12.1981.
A Juvenile under 1986 act has been defined as a person below sixteen years in case of a boy and below eighteen years in case of a girl on the date the boy or girl is brought for first appearance before the court or the competent authority, whereas the 2000 Act, as noticed below, does not distinguish between a boy or girl and a person under the age of eighteen years is a juvenile. Further, under the 2000 Act, the age on the date of commission of the offence is the determining factor.
In Pratap Singh v. the State of Jharkhand the Constitution Bench held that the 2000 Act would be applicable in a pending proceeding instituted under the 1986 Act in any court or authority, if the person had not completed eighteen years of age as on 1st April 2001, when the 2000 Act came into force. On the first question, it was held that the reckoning date for the determination of the age of the juvenile is the date of the offence and not the date when he is produced before the authority or in a court. Consequently, the 2000 Act would have prospective effect and not retrospective effect except in cases where the person had not completed the age of eighteen years on the date of commencement of the 2000 Act. Other pending cases would be governed by the provisions of the 1986 Act.
After the judgment, many amendments were made in the 2000 act. One the other hand amendment in the 2000 Act stated that in all cases where the juvenile is in conflict of the law and is undergoing the imprisonment on the date of commencement of the 2000 Act, the cases shall be deemed to be decided in terms of section 2(1) and other provisions and rules under the Act irrespective of the fact that the juvenile has ceased to be a juvenile.
“This court at this stage can decide and determine the question of juvenility of Satya Deo, notwithstanding the fact that Satya Deo was not entitled to the benefit of being a juvenile on the date of the offence, under the 1986 Act, and had turned an adult when the 2000 Act was enforced. As Satya Deo was less than 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence on 11.12.1981, he is entitled to be treated as a juvenile and be given benefit as per the 2000 Act.”
Observed the Bench
The court also noted that, in terms of Section 25 of the 2015 Act, 2000 Act would continue to apply and govern the proceedings which were pending when the 2015 Act was enforced.
The SC upheld the conviction of Satya Deo, and set aside the sentence of life imprisonment. The Court futher said that they would remit the matter to the jurisdiction of the Board for passing appropriate order/directions under Section 15 of the 2000 Act including the question of determination and payment of appropriate quantum of fine and the compensation to be awarded to the family of the deceased. The bench said that they make no affirmative or negative comments either way on the order/direction under Section 15 of the 2000 Act. They accordingly, direct the jail authorities to produce Satya Deo before the Board within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Board shall then pass appropriate order regarding detention and custody and proceed thereafter to pass order/directions under the 2000 Act.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
