Child Tried As Adult For Murder Can't Be Awarded Fixed 10-Year Sentence; Life Term Must Carry Possibility Of Release: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a 10-year sentence awarded to a child in conflict with law convicted of murder, holding that such a punishment is ex facie illegal under Section 302 IPC.

The Court clarified that even when a juvenile is tried as an adult, the sentence for murder can only be life imprisonment (with possibility of release) and not a fixed-term sentence.

For context, Section 302 IPC prescribes punishment for murder with death or imprisonment for life, along with a fine.

However,  Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act prescribes that no Child-in-Conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life without the possibility of release.

Since the offence of murder statutorily attracts only the punishment of death or life, the Court clarified that in such situations it may award life imprisonment which shall not run to the end of natural life

A Division bench said, "The problematic and illegal portion is the next sentence under §302, read with 34 IPC. The learned trial Judge imposed a sentence of RI for a period of 10 years and directed payment of a fine of Rs. 5000/-...On the face of it, this sentence is contrary to the basic statutory provision of §302 IPC, which provides for only two sentences, i.e., either life imprisonment or death. Nowhere is it mentioned that under §302 IPC, the sentence can be for 10 years."

The appellant had been convicted under Sections 302 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC in FIR lodged in 2022. The trial court had sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence of murder and 6 months' imprisonment under Section 506 IPC.

At the outset, the High Court noted a “fundamental defect” in the sentencing order. While the trial court had treated the appellant as a child but tried him as an adult under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, it imposed a fixed-term sentence of 10 years for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

The Bench held that such a sentence is impermissible in law, as Section 302 IPC prescribes only two punishments—death or life imprisonment. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that any punishment less than life imprisonment for murder is illegal and without authority of law.

The Court further examined the interplay between Sections 19 and 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It observed that while a child can be tried as an adult, Section 21 prohibits imposition of death penalty or life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

Clarifying the legal position, the Bench held that in cases where a child is convicted for an offence like murder, the only permissible sentence is life imprisonment, but with a clear possibility of release, in line with the reformative intent of juvenile law.

"Thus, the crucial words in §21 are that a Child-in-Conflict with law is not to be sentenced to death or life imprisonment unless the possibility of release has been specified. The legislative intention is very clear that if somebody is given capital punishment, then there is no possibility of release, as such, on the face of it, a death sentence cannot be given. Regarding the second part of §21, when it talks about life imprisonment, without the possibility of release, what the legislature implies is that the life imprisonment normally runs through the entire life, where there may be circumstances of no possibility of release, still, such a harsh sentence cannot be imposed upon a Child-in-Conflict when tried as an adult," said the Court.

It added that, it would be sufficient when the Courts are trying a child as an adult and when they hold such a child guilty for murder or other offenses, where the only sentence prescribed is imprisonment for life or death, the only sentence the Courts can award is either life or death, then in such a situation, the life imprisonment shall not run to the end of natural life.

The Court found that the trial judge had misread the statutory provisions and erroneously imposed a 10-year sentence, which is not contemplated under law.

However, instead of modifying the sentence itself, the High Court chose to remand the matter to the trial court. It observed that directly imposing life imprisonment at the appellate stage could prejudice the convict, who has a right to be heard on the question of sentence, especially in light of protections under the Juvenile Justice Act.

"At this stage, if this Court clarifies the order by imposing life imprisonment, then it would certainly cause prejudice to the accused because an accused has a right to argue on limitations against the State and the rights given to the accused under Section 21 of the JJ Act which says that no Child-in-Conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life without the possibility of release of such a convict and to afford such a convict the possibility of release, the appropriate Court for that purpose would again be the Trial Court and the Higher Courts after upholding the conviction," the bench observed.

It further clarified that "we are not hearing the appeal, but we have noticed the illegality in sentencing at the admission stage itself. Given this, we have no option but to allow the appeal in part, set aside the portion of the sentence awarded under §302 IPC read with §34 of the IPC, and remand the matter to the trial Court to re-hear the appellant/convict on the sentence and pass a sentence in accordance with the law."

Mr. V.P. Sangwan, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Karan Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana.

Title: XXX v. State of Haryana

Order