by the by the Legislature, it is apt to note here that there can
be a situation where commission of an offence may be totally
innocuous or emerging from a circumstance where a young boy is not
aware of the consequences but in cases of rape, dacoity, murder
which are heinous crimes, it is extremely difficult to conceive
that the Juvenile was not aware of the consequences.
As the FIR lodged in the present case would reveal, the
deceased was liable to pay to the accused no.1 and as he did not
pay back, all the accused persons including the present petitioner
went to his house, forcibly took him away to another village and
assaulted him with kicks, lathies and iron pipes. As the
allegation would further reveal, the deceased was removed to a
hospital for treatment, gave a dying declaration and consequently
succumbed to death. We may hasten to clarify, the appeal has to
be decided on its own merits. But the issue that emerges is
whether in such a situation, can it be conceived by any stretch of
imagination that the petitioner was not aware of the consequences?
Or for that matter, was it a crime committed, if proven, with a
mind that was not matured enough? Or the life of the victim is
totally immaterial, for five people, including a juvenile, think
unless somebody pays the debt, he can face his death.
We have repeated this, in addition to what we have said
earlier. The rate of crime and the nature of crime in which the
juvenile are getting involved for which the Union of India and the
State Governments are compelled to file cases before this Court to
which the learned Attorney General does not disagree, have
increased. A time has come to think of an effective law to deal
with the situation, we would request the learned Attorney General
to bring it to the notice of the concerned authorities so that the
relevant provisions under the Act can be re-looked, re-scrutinized
and re-visited, at least in respect of offences which are heinous
in nature.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).
2366-2368/2015
GAURAV KUMAR @ MONU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
Citation: 2015(4)SCALE531
Date : 06/04/2015
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
In this special leave petition preferred under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner who claims to be a
juvenile has called in question the legal defensibility of the
order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana in Application No.20593 of 2014 in
Criminal Appeal No.937-DB of 2002 under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure asserting, inter alia, that on the date, the2
offence took place, i.e. 23.05.2000, he was 17 years and nine
months old, his date of birth being 17.08.1982.
The High Court had called for a report from the concerned
learned Sessions Judge. The report being against the petitioner,
the learned counsel appearing for him did not press the
application. Be it noted, the report of the learned Sessions
Judge was to the extent that the present petitioner was not a
juvenile on the date of occurrence.
It is submitted by Mr. Raval, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner that even though the application was not
pressed, regard being had to the provisions contained in the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2000
(for brevity, 'the Act'), the petitioner would be at liberty to
challenge the order inasmuch as the matriculation certificate is
in his favour.
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India, has
seriously contested the said position on two scores, namely, once
it has not been pressed, the same cannot be assailed and second,
in any case, the certificate obtained by the petitioner cannot be
treated as sacrosanct for many a reason.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned AAG for the State of Haryana also
supported the stand put forth by the learned Attorney General for
India. Learned counsel for the State undertakes to file the
countery affidavit in that regard. It is also agreed to by Mr.
Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India that the Union of
India shall also file a counter affidavit.
Ordinarily, so stating, we would have adjourned the matter,
but the circumstances compel us to say something more on this
score. In Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Swapan Ropyu this
Court, on 24.11.2014 passed the following order :
“This Court on 27th October, 2014, had passed the
following order:
'Mr. Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, apart
from submitting that the finding recorded on
that score is absolutely unsustainable, also
submitted that the entire scheme of
juvenility is engaging the attention of the
Central Government. While dealing with the
issue, two suggestions were given to the
learned Attorney General, namely, whether
there is any kind of consideration as regards
the reduction of age, and whether the
juvenility will depend upon the nature of
offence committed. To elaborate, whether3
the attention of the Government will be drawn
to the prevailing atmosphere that most of the
juveniles are engaged in horrendous and
heinous crimes like rape, murder and
drug-peddling, etc.'
It is submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi,
learned Attorney General appearing for Union of
India, along with Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned
Additional Solicitor General that the concern
expressed by this Court is still engaging the
attention of the competent authority of the
State. It is further submitted by Mr. Rohatgi
that he realizes the concern of the 'Nation' at
the rate the heinous crimes are committed by the
juveniles, who are called juvenile under the
present Act, the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Elaborating
the concern, the learned Attorney General would
state that in the instant case the respondent,
who claims to be a juvenile, has been alleged
accused of offence wherein a gathering in a
village was attacked by lethal weapons by other
accused persons along with the respondent which
has resulted in the death of nine persons and
injuries have been suffered by several other
persons.”
Mr. Rohatgi and Mr. Mehta would submit that
the High Court has found him to be a juvenile as
he was seventeen years and six months on the date
of alleged occurrence, though they seriously
would contend that it is factually incorrect.
That is the controversy to be gone into.
Mr. Rohatgi and Mr. Mehta would further propone
that this kind of involvement of the juveniles
under the present Act are increasing and it has
actually become a matter of grave concern. We
are inclined to think that the concern expressed
by learned Attorney General is absolutely correct
and we are of the convinced opinion that he will
put it across to the competent authorities so
that care is taken to the extent that the nature
of the offence has some nexus with the age in
question, for the cry of the collected is to live
in a peaceful society that respects life, dignity
and others' liberty.
Let this matter be listed in the second week of
January, 2015, for further hearing.”4
When we said that we thought that there should be a rethinking
by the by the Legislature, it is apt to note here that there can
be a situation where commission of an offence may be totally
innocuous or emerging from a circumstance where a young boy is not
aware of the consequences but in cases of rape, dacoity, murder
which are heinous crimes, it is extremely difficult to conceive
that the Juvenile was not aware of the consequences.
As the FIR lodged in the present case would reveal, the
deceased was liable to pay to the accused no.1 and as he did not
pay back, all the accused persons including the present petitioner
went to his house, forcibly took him away to another village and
assaulted him with kicks, lathies and iron pipes. As the
allegation would further reveal, the deceased was removed to a
hospital for treatment, gave a dying declaration and consequently
succumbed to death. We may hasten to clarify, the appeal has to
be decided on its own merits. But the issue that emerges is
whether in such a situation, can it be conceived by any stretch of
imagination that the petitioner was not aware of the consequences?
Or for that matter, was it a crime committed, if proven, with a
mind that was not matured enough? Or the life of the victim is
totally immaterial, for five people, including a juvenile, think
unless somebody pays the debt, he can face his death.
We have repeated this, in addition to what we have said
earlier. The rate of crime and the nature of crime in which the
juvenile are getting involved for which the Union of India and the
State Governments are compelled to file cases before this Court to
which the learned Attorney General does not disagree, have
increased. A time has come to think of an effective law to deal
with the situation, we would request the learned Attorney General
to bring it to the notice of the concerned authorities so that the
relevant provisions under the Act can be re-looked, re-scrutinized
and re-visited, at least in respect of offences which are heinous
in nature.
Let the matter be listed in the first week of May 2015.
(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master
No comments:
Post a Comment