Juvenile Justice Act Only Relevant For Quantum Of Sentence, Conviction Not Vitiated If Inquiry Is Not Conducted By JJB: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a conviction which had been recorded cannot be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry into the juvenility of the accused was not conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015 would be attractedThe bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that a recorded conviction could not be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry was not conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board as required under Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (“2015 Act”). “Otherwise, the accused who has committed a heinous offence and who did not claim juvenility before the Trial Court would be allowed to go scot free… The object under the JJ Act, 2015 dealing with the rights and liberties of the juvenile is only to ensure that he or she could be brought into the main stream by awarding lesser sentence and also directing for other facilities for welfare of the juvenile, in conflict with law, during his/her stay in any of the institutions defined under the JJ Act, 2015,” the court said.The appellant was held to be guilty for the offence of rape and was sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment. During the course of the trial or at the time of passing of the judgment, no plea was taken on his behalf that he was less than 13 years of age while committing the offence. After 33 years of his conviction and sentence, the plea of juvenility was raised for the first time in the appeal before the Court challenging the sentence awarded to the appellant.After hearing the contentions in the case, the Court highlighted that during the pendency of the appeal, the 2015 Act came into being, and as per Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act, the plea of juvenility could be raised before any court at any stage, even after final disposal of the case.Reference was made to certain Supreme Court cases, including Vinod Katara v State of Uttar Pradesh, in which the Apex Court had directed the Sessions Court to inquire regarding the age of the accused, as per law, even though he had crossed 50 years of age, and his appeal against conviction was rejected. In this light, the Court had ordered a similar inquiry in the present case, which revealed that the appellant was less than 13 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. The Court perused a series of judgments on similar issues which presented varying outcomes wherein some set aside the conviction, sentence and terminated the proceedings, while others upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused. It was held that merely because the enquiry was not conducted by a Juvenile Justice Board, a trial conducted and conviction recorded by the Sessions Court would not be vitiated in law even though subsequently the person tried was held to be a child. It was observed that the intention of the legislature was to give benefits to such a person only with respect to the sentence. The court said:“If the conviction was also to be made ineffective then either the jurisdiction of regular Sessions Court would have been completely excluded not only under Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015 but also under Section 25 of the JJ Act, 2015, provision would have been made that on a finding being recorded that the person being tried is a child, a pending trial should also be relegated to the JJB and also that such trial would be held to be null and void. Instead, under Section 25 of the JJ Act, 2015, it is clearly provided that any proceeding pending before any Board or Court on the date of commencement of the JJ Act, 2015 shall be continued in that Board or Court as if this Act had not been enacted.”Hence, it was held that only the question of sentence would be attracted under the 2015 Act, and any sentence in excess of what was permissible under the 2015 Act would have to be amended accordingly. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant was upheld, and the sentence was modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of. Title: Kailash v State of Rajasthan Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 222Click Here To Read/Download Order

Juvenile Justice Act Only Relevant For Quantum Of Sentence, Conviction Not Vitiated If Inquiry Is Not Conducted By JJB: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

Tags