The Supreme Court has held that a conviction on the merits need not be set aside merely because a juvenile was tried by a regular criminal court. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of an accused who was tried as an adult, the Court set aside the sentence imposed on him after finding that he was a juvenile on the date of the offence.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard the case where the Appellant-accused was tried by a regular court and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for committing an offence of murder.

Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant-accused sought setting aside of his conviction on the ground that the conviction rendered by a regular court was ex facie illegal, as his juvenility was proved during the pendency of an appeal.

Rejecting the accused's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar observed that the conviction rendered on the merits, even though by a regular court, would sustain. However, the sentence imposed by a regular criminal court cannot survive.

“…a conviction on merits need not be annulled merely because the person was tried by a regular court; and however the adult sentence cannot survive.”, the Court observed.

Noting that the Appellant had already undergone more than the statutory maximum, the Court, accepting his plea of juvenility, had directed his release.

“We accordingly accept the declaration of juvenility. The sentence of life imprisonment and the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment, together with the fine and default stipulations imposed by the Trial Court, cannot operate against the appellant.”, the Court said.

Moreover, the Court also clarified that the protection under Section 19 of the JJ Act 2000, which provides that a juvenile dealt with under the Act shall not suffer any disqualification attached to a conviction under another law, would apply to the Appellant.

“The Appellant shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction, in terms of Section 19 of the 2000 Act. The Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat shall ensure compliance with the consequential statutory requirements concerning the records.”, the Court ordered.

The appeal was partly allowed.

Cause Title: DINESH KUMAR VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 805

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Adv. Mr. Umakant Misra, Adv. Mr. Debabrata Dash, Adv. Mr. Soubhagya Ranjan Pati, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anu Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Rajesh K. Singh, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Deepika Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rovins Fr. Verma, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv.