Criminal Appeal No. 907 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3336 of 2006). Case: Hari Ram Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment:

Altamas Kabir, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal raises certain questions which are fundamental to the understanding and implementation of the objects for which the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the `Juvenile Justice Act, 2000') was enacted. The said law which was enacted to deal with offences committed by juveniles, in a manner which was meant to be different from the law applicable to adults, is yet to be fully appreciated by those who have been entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the same, possibly on account of their inability to adapt to a system which, while having the trappings of the general criminal law, is, however, different therefrom. The very scheme of the aforesaid Act is rehabilitatory in nature and not adversarial which the courts are generally used to. The implementation of the said law, therefore, requires a complete change in the mind-set of those who are vested with the authority of enforcing the same, without which it will be almost impossible to achieve the objects of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

3. The appellant, Hari Ram, was arrested along with several others on 30.11.1998, for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 148, 302, 149, Section 325 read with Section 149 and Section 323/149 Indian Penal Code. After the case was committed for trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana, by his order dated 3rd April, 2000, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 1999 determined the age of the accused to be below 16 years on the date of commission of the offence and after declaring him to be a juvenile, directed that he be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. This appeal has been filed against the common order dated 7th December, 2005, passed by the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Crl. Revision Petition No. 165 of 2000, filed by the Respondent No. 2 herein and in Crl. Revision Petition No. 199 of 2005 filed by the appellant, also being aggrieved by the said common order. While Crl. Revision No. 199 filed by the appellant herein challenging the framing of charges was dismissed, Crl. Revision No. 165 filed by the State of Rajasthan was allowed holding that the appellant was not a juvenile and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, were not, therefore, applicable to him.

5. According to the appellant's father, the appellant's date of birth is Kartik Sudi 1, Samvat Year 2039, which is equivalent to 17th October, 1982, whereas the offence was alleged to have been committed on 30th October, 1998, which mathematically indicates that at the time of commission of the offence, the appellant had completed 16 years and 13 days and was, therefore, excluded from the scope and operation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Furthermore, the medical examination conducted in respect of the appellant by a Medical Board indicated that his age at the relevant time was between 16 and 17 years. After considering the various decisions of this Court indicating the manner in which the age of a juvenile is to be determined, the High Court observed that the inescapable conclusion which could be arrived at is that on the date of the incident, the accused-appellant herein was above 16 years of age and was, therefore, not governed by the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the `1986 Act').

6. It is the said order of the High Court which has been impugned in this appeal.

7. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the High Court had acted in a highly technical manner in holding that the appellant was not a juvenile and had in the process defeated the very object of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which is aimed at rehabilitating juvenile offenders in order to bring them back to main-stream society and to give them an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves as useful citizens of the future. In fact, the definition of "juvenile" in the 1986 Act was altered in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, to include persons who had not completed 18 years of age. In other words, the age until which a male child in conflict with law would be treated as a juvenile was raised from 16 years to 18 years.

8. Mr. Jain submitted that the learned Single Judge of the High Court appears to have misconstrued the decisions cited before him in the case of Santenu Mitra v. State of West Bengal AIR 1999 SC 1587 and Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1982 SC 1057, wherein the admissibility of certain records, including school records maintained by private institutions, under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was under consideration. On the other hand, Mr. Jain referred to an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1625, where certain copies from the school registers were looked into and it was held that the same amounted to evidence under the Indian Evidence Act as the entries in the school registers were made long before the same were used by way of evidence. This Court observed that the said entries were reliable as they had been made ante litem motam. Mr. Jain also referred to certain observations made in Umesh Chandra's case (supra) while interpreting Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act to the effect that there is no legal requirement that a public or other official book should be kept only by a public officer and all that is required is that it should be regularly kept in discharge of official duties.

9. In support of his submissions, Mr. Jain lastly referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. AIR 2002 SC 748, wherein in paragraph 5 this Court observed as follows:

5. It is true that the age of the accused is just on the border of sixteen years and on the date of the offence and his arrest he was less than 16 years by a few months only. In Arnit Das v. State of Bihar (2005) 5 SCC 488 this Court has, on a review of judicial opinion, held that while dealing with the question of determination of the age of the accused for the purpose of finding out whether he is juvenile or not, a hypertechnical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile and if two views may be possible on the said evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. The law, so laid down by this Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

10. Mr. Jain emphasised that this was also a similar case in which the record, according to the date of birth indicated by his father and another witness - Narain Ram, shows that he was just 13 days older than the cut-off limit of 16 years provided in Section 2(h) of the 1986 Act.

11. Mr. Jain submitted that since the incident is alleged to have taken place as far back as on 30th October, 1998 and more than 10 years have elapsed since then and the definition of "juvenile" had since been amended to include children who had not yet attained the age of 18 years, the High Court should not have taken such a hypertechnical view and should not have interfered with the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana, declaring the appellant to be a juvenile.

12. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that even on the basis of the age as disclosed by the appellant's father, the appellant was over 16 years of age on the date of commission of the offence and could not, therefore, be treated to be a juvenile as defined in the 1986 Act. It was submitted that the documents, which were produced in support of the appellant's claim to be a minor, show him to have crossed the age of 16 years on the date of commission of the offence and the High Court had merely corrected the error of the Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana, in calculation of the appellant's age. According to the respondents, the order of the High Court impugned in the present appeal did not call for any interference and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

13. As indicated in the very beginning of this judgment, the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, was enacted to deal with offences allegedly committed by juveniles on a different footing from adults, with the object of rehabilitating them. The need to treat children differently from adults in relation to commission of offences had been under the consideration of the Central Government ever since India achieved independence. With such object in mind, Parliament enacted the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, in order to achieve the constitutional goals contemplated in Articles 15(3), 39(e) and (f), 45 and 47 of the Constitution imposing on the State a responsibility of ensuring that all the needs of children are met and that their basic human rights are fully protected. Subsequently, in keeping with certain international Conventions and in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985, commonly known as the Beijing Rules, the Legislature enacted the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to attain the following objects:

(i) to lay down the basic principles for administering justice to a juvenile...