Juvenile Justice: Supreme Court Orders Release of Death Row Convict After 5 Years of Incarceration
Case Reference: Karan v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023
Decided on 03-03-2023
Introduction
Welcome to the official blog of the Law Offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate and Associates, where we are dedicated to providing litigation support services for matters related to the Juvenile Justice Act. In today’s blog post, we aim to shed light on the prevailing issues surrounding the Juvenile Justice Act, the legal framework for their protection, and the steps we can take as a society to combat these acts. Join us as we explore this critical subject and empower you with the knowledge to protect your rights and safety.
In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has directed the release of a death row convict who had been incarcerated for more than 5 years in a case involving the kidnap, rape, and murder of a minor. The Court, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, set aside the death sentence and ordered his immediate release. This ruling stems from a case where the appellant had claimed juvenility and sought the benefits available under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (J.J. Act, 2015).
Background
The appellant had challenged the order passed by the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had affirmed the death sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The charges against the appellant included offenses under Section 363, 376(2)(i), 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as well as Section 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The appellant argued that the sentence awarded under Section 9(2) of the J.J. Act, 2015 should not be enforced. Additionally, he had already undergone more than 5 years of incarceration, whereas Section 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015 allows for a juvenile below 16 years to be awarded a maximum of 3 years of stay in a special home for heinous offenses.
The Court’s Examination
The Supreme Court bench, comprised of B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, JJ., carefully examined the case. They considered the report and material evidence presented before the Trial Court, along with the oral evidence of the appellant’s current and former teachers and guardian. Based on this evidence, the bench concluded that the appellant was indeed aged 15 years, 4 months, and 20 days on the date of the incident.
Interpretation of Juvenile Justice Act
The bench then analyzed the relevant provisions of the J.J. Act, 2015. Section 9 of this act states that a person who was established to be a child on the date of the offense can avail the benefits under the act, even after the case has been decided or the person has attained majority. Sub-section (3) of this section stipulates that if an inquiry determines that a person was a child on the date of the offense, the Court must forward the child to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) for appropriate orders. Moreover, any sentence imposed by the Court is deemed to have no effect in such cases.
Section 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015 sets a maximum punishment period of 3 years for a juvenile, with an emphasis on providing reformative services, including education, skill development, counseling, and psychiatric support. However, the appellant had already served 5 years of incarceration, which was deemed illegal by the Court.
Resolution of Key Legal Issues
The Supreme Court examined critical legal issues that arose in the case, including:
- Status of Conviction and Sentence: The Court clarified that a finding of juvenile status after conviction does not invalidate the conviction itself. Instead, it only renders the sentence ineffective. This interpretation preserves the jurisdiction of the regular Sessions Court, ensuring that it can continue to oversee the case.
- Inquiry by Juvenile Justice Board: The Court ruled that a lack of inquiry by the JJB does not automatically vitiate the conviction. The merits of the conviction can still be examined, but any sentence exceeding the limits set by the J.J. Act, 2015, must be amended.
- Continuation of Proceedings: The Court emphasized that proceedings pending before any Board or Court on the date of the commencement of the J.J. Act, 2015, must continue as if the Act had not been enacted. This provision ensures the continuity of cases and preserves the integrity of the legal process.
Supreme Court’s Legal Interpretation
A full bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, addressed the appellant’s claims and examined the relevant legal provisions. The Court emphasized the fundamental purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which is to safeguard the rights and liberties of juvenile offenders and facilitate their reintegration into mainstream society through the imposition of lenient sentences.
The Court referred to Section 9 of the J.J. Act, 2015, which grants individuals who were children at the time of the offense the right to avail themselves of the Act’s benefits even after their case has been decided or they have reached adulthood. Sub-section (3) of this provision stipulates that if an inquiry determines that the accused was a child at the time of the offense, the Court must refer the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) for appropriate orders. In cases where a sentence has already been imposed, that sentence is to be considered null and void.
Conclusion
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of the appellant but set aside the death sentence, ordering his immediate release. This ruling underscores the central objective of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which is to safeguard the rights of juvenile offenders and facilitate their reintegration into society through the imposition of shorter sentences. The Court’s interpretation of the Act ensures that the justice system can effectively address cases involving juveniles, promoting a fair and compassionate approach to juvenile offenders.
We are a law firm in the name and style of Law Offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate and Associates at Gurugram and Rewari. We are providing litigation support services for matters related to the Juvenile Justice Act.