The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short JJ Act) provides full coverage to a person who is established to be a child on the date of the offense to avail the benefits available to a child under 2015 of JJ Act even if the case has been finally decided and also such person has attained majority. The court made the punishment imposed ineffective after finding out that the appellant was a child on the date of the commission of an offense.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the application was filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short JJ Act), which was dismissed as withdrawn. Aggrieved by this, the instant criminal appeal is preferred against the order by the Appellant.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant submitted that after the petitioner under section 9 of the JJ Act was filed, the evidence was called on record, however, no order was passed as the said petition was withdrawn on behalf of the Appellant under the influence of wrong advice. It was furthermore submitted that the age determination under Section 9 of JJ Act is essential for the ends of justice and inquiry can be held at any stage. Also, the trial court is proceeding with the case and the age of the appellant is not determined.
Contentions of the State
The State submitted that the order of the determination of age has already been passed in which the Appellant was found to be not juvenile.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stipulates that a child must be at least 16 years old and capable of comprehending the grave nature of the offense in order for them to be tried as an adult. When pursuing legal action against an individual who asserts they were a child in violation of the law at the time of the offence, courts must keep the Juvenile Justice Act's provisions in their mind. Before moving forward, the court must issue an order in accordance with the law if a definitive ruling regarding age determination has not yet been made. The court relied upon the judgment titled Karan v. State of M.P.
The court noted that a reading of section 9 of the JJ Act firstly allows a person who is accused of committing an offense to assert that he was a minor on the day the offense was committed. If this assertion is made, the court in question will investigate and obtain any additional evidence beyond the affidavit that may be required to establish the accused person's age. The proviso to sub-section (2) further clarifies that a claim of this kind may be brought before any court and may be acknowledged at any point, even after the matter has been decided. In addition to this, Subsection (3) states that the court must forward the child to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders to be passed and that any sentence the court has imposed will be deemed to have no effect if it is discovered during the inquiry that the person was a child on the date the offence was committed.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the appellant was the child on the date of the commission of an offence. The court made the sentence imposed to be ineffective.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the criminal appeal.
Case Title: Sarfaraz Ansari V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.99 of 2024
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
