[2013] 7 S.C.R. 576 A KETANKUMAR GOPALBHAI TANDEL V. STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 2004) JULY 18, 2013 B [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.) JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF C CHILDREN) ACT, 2000: ss. 2(k), 2(1), 7-A, 20 and 49 - Accused convicted u/ss 302 and 324 /PC aged less than 18 years on date of commission of offence (i.e. 6.5.1995) - Held: Is entitled to benefit of the Act - Conviction affirmed - However, the sentence awarded by trial court as affirmed by High Court set aside and matter sent to Juvenile Justice Board for imposing adequate sentence -Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - rr. 12 and 98. E In the instant appeal arising out of the conviction and sentence of the appeliant for commission of offences punishable ulss 302 and 324 IPC, the question for consideration before the Court was: "whether or not the appellant, who was admittedly not a juvenile within the F meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 when offences were committed but had not completed 18 years of age, on that date, will be governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and be declared as a juvenile in relation to the offences alleged G to have been committed by him." · Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 576 H KETANKUMAR GOPALBHAI TANDEL v. STATE OF 577 GUJARAT HELD: A

In view of ss. 2(k), 2(1), 7-A, 20 and 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 read with rr.12 and 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, all persons who were 8below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence ~ven prior to 1-4-2001, would be treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of 18 years on or before the date of the commencement of the 2000 Act and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted. In the C instant case, on the date of the commission of the offence i.e. 06.05.1995, the appellant was 17 years, 11 months and 5 days, thus, less than 18 years, and, therefore, he has to be treated as a juvenile on the date of the crime and, as such, entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the D 2000 Act read with the Rules.The order of conviction is affirmed. However, the sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is sent to the Juvenile Justice Court for imposing adequate sentence. [para 6-8] [580-C-H] E Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another 2010 (5) SCR 137 = (2010) 5 sec 344 - relied on. Case Law Reference: F ; 2010 (5) SCR 137 relied on para 5 CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2003 of the G High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Crl. Appeal No. 366 of 1997. S.C. Patel for the Appellant. H

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A Hemantika Wahi, Sumita Hazarika Shubhada Deshpande for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The question that falls for B consideration in this appeal is whether or not the appellant, who was admittedly not a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short 'the 1986 Act') when offences were committed but had not completed 18 years of age, on that date, will be governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection C of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the 2000 Acf) and be declared as a juvenile in relation to the offences alleged to have been committed by him.

2. The appellant herein was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad (trial court) in Sessions Case No. 1330 of 1995 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs1000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for E 15 days for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 7 days for an offence punishable under Section 324, · 1PC. Both the sentences were ordered to run F concurrently. The accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 1997 before the High Court of Gujarat, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.07.2003 against which this appeal has been preferred. 3. Shri S.C. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the G appellant raised a preliminary contention that the appellant has to be treated as a juvenile on 06.05.1995 i.e. the date of occurrence, in view of the provision of the 2000 Act, since his date of birth being 01.06.1977. On 06.05.1995, it was pointed . out that the appellant was 17 years, 11 months and 5 days, H KETANKUMAR GOPALBHAI TANDEL v. STATE OF 579 GUJARAT [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] · hence less than 18 years and is, therefore, entitled to get the A benefit of the 2000 Act.

4. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant is governed by the 1986 Act and under the 1986 Act all persons who were above 8 the age of 16 years on the date of the commission of the offence would not be treated as juveniles arid since the appellant was aged more than 16 years on the date of occurrence hence would not get the benefit of juvenility. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court as well as the High Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant C and thus calls for no interference by this Court. 5. We have gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as that of the High Court and also the oral and documentary evidences adduced in this case and we find no reason to D interfere with the order of conviction passed by the trial court, confirmed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not canvassed the correctness or otherwise of the order of conviction but confined his arguments, as already indicated, on the plea of juvenility. The question posed in this E case is no longer res integra. On exhaustive survey of the previous judgments on the point this Court in Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (201 Cl) 5 SCC 344 held as follows:

"It is, thus, manifest from a conjoint reading of Sections F 2(k), 2(1), 7-A, 20 and 49 of the Act of 2000 read with Rules 12 and 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 that all persons who were below the age of eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to 1-4-2001 would be treated as G juveniles even if the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the date of the commencement of the Act of 2000 and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted. In the view H 580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R. A we have taken, we are fortified by the dictum of this Court in a recent decision in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan."

6. This Court, when the matter came up for hearing, directed the Sessions Judge, Valsad (Gujarat) to find out the age of the appellant on the date of occurrence of the crime. The8 Sessions Judge vide his report dated 11.04.2011 stated that the appellant was. not juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e. 06.05.1995. Such a view was taken by the Sessions Judge on the basis of the 1986 Act. If we apply the provisions of the 1986 C Act then the appellant was not a juvenile on the date of the crime but if we apply Sections 2(k), 2(1), 7-A, 20 and 49 of the 2000 Act read with Rules 12 and 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules') all persons who were below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to 1-4-2001, would be D treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of 18 years on or before the date of the commencement of the 2000 Act and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted. E 7. So far as the present case is concerned, as already indicated, the age of the appellant as on the date of th~,· commission of the offence i.e. 06.05.1995 was 17 years; 11 months and 5 days and hence less than 18 years, and hence when we apply provisions of the 2000 Act, the appellant has F to be treated as a juvenile, being less than 18 years of age on the date of the crime and hence entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the 2000 Act read with Rules.

8. We are therefore inclined to affirm the order of G conviction, however, the sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is sent to the concerned Juvenile Justice Court for imposing adequate sentence. Appeal is allowe(J as above. R.P. Appeal partly allowed. H

[2013] 7 S.C.R. 576 A KETANKUMAR GOPALBHAI TANDEL V. STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 2004) JULY 18, 2013 B [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.) JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF C CHILDREN) ACT, 2000: ss. 2(k), 2(1), 7-A, 20 and 49 - Accused convicted u/ss 302 and 324 /PC aged less than 18 years on date of commission of offence (i.e. 6.5.1995) - Held: Is entitled to benefit of the Act - Conviction affirmed - However, the sentence awarded by trial court as affirmed by High Court set aside and matter sent to Juvenile Justice Board for imposing adequate sentence -Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - rr. 12 and 98. E In the instant appeal arising out of the conviction and sentence of the appeliant for commission of offences punishable ulss 302 and 324 IPC, the question for consideration before the Court was: "whether or not the appellant, who was admittedly not a juvenile within the F meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 when offences were committed but had not completed 18 years of age, on that date, will be governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and be declared as a juvenile in relation to the offences alleged G to have been committed by him." · Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 576 H KETANKUMAR GOPALBHAI TANDEL v. STATE OF 577 GUJARAT HELD: A

In view of ss. 2(k), 2(1), 7-A, 20 and 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 read with rr.12 and 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, all persons who were 8below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence ~ven prior to 1-4-2001, would be treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of 18 years on or before the date of the commencement of the 2000 Act and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted. In the C instant case, on the date of the commission of the offence i.e. 06.05.1995, the appellant was 17 years, 11 months and 5 days, thus, less than 18 years, and, therefore, he has to be treated as a juvenile on the date of the crime and, as such, entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the D 2000 Act read with the Rules.The order of conviction is affirmed. However, the sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is sent to the Juvenile Justice Court for imposing adequate sentence. [para 6-8] [580-C-H] E Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another 2010 (5) SCR 137 = (2010) 5 sec 344 - relied on. Case Law Reference: F ; 2010 (5) SCR 137 relied on para 5 CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2003 of the G High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Crl. Appeal No. 366 of 1997. S.C. Patel for the Appellant. H

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A Hemantika Wahi, Sumita Hazarika Shubhada Deshpande for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The question that falls for B consideration in this appeal is whether or not the appellant, who was admittedly not a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short 'the 1986 Act') when offences were committed but had not completed 18 years of age, on that date, will be governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection C of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the 2000 Acf) and be declared as a juvenile in relation to the offences alleged to have been committed by him.

2. The appellant herein was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad (trial court) in Sessions Case No. 1330 of 1995 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs1000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for E 15 days for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 7 days for an offence punishable under Section 324, · 1PC. Both the sentences were ordered to run F concurrently. The accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 1997 before the High Court of Gujarat, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.07.2003 against which this appeal has been preferred. 3. Shri S.C. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the G appellant raised a preliminary contention that the appellant has to be treated as a juvenile on 06.05.1995 i.e. the date of occurrence, in view of the provision of the 2000 Act, since his date of birth being 01.06.1977. On 06.05.1995, it was pointed . out that the appellant was 17 years, 11 months and 5 days, H KETANKUMAR GOPALBHAI TANDEL v. STATE OF 579 GUJARAT [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] · hence less than 18 years and is, therefore, entitled to get the A benefit of the 2000 Act.

4. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant is governed by the 1986 Act and under the 1986 Act all persons who were above 8 the age of 16 years on the date of the commission of the offence would not be treated as juveniles arid since the appellant was aged more than 16 years on the date of occurrence hence would not get the benefit of juvenility. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court as well as the High Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant C and thus calls for no interference by this Court. 5. We have gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as that of the High Court and also the oral and documentary evidences adduced in this case and we find no reason to D interfere with the order of conviction passed by the trial court, confirmed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not canvassed the correctness or otherwise of the order of conviction but confined his arguments, as already indicated, on the plea of juvenility. The question posed in this E case is no longer res integra. On exhaustive survey of the previous judgments on the point this Court in Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (201 Cl) 5 SCC 344 held as follows:

"It is, thus, manifest from a conjoint reading of Sections F 2(k), 2(1), 7-A, 20 and 49 of the Act of 2000 read with Rules 12 and 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 that all persons who were below the age of eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to 1-4-2001 would be treated as G juveniles even if the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the date of the commencement of the Act of 2000 and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted. In the view H 580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R. A we have taken, we are fortified by the dictum of this Court in a recent decision in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan."

6. This Court, when the matter came up for hearing, directed the Sessions Judge, Valsad (Gujarat) to find out the age of the appellant on the date of occurrence of the crime. The8 Sessions Judge vide his report dated 11.04.2011 stated that the appellant was. not juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e. 06.05.1995. Such a view was taken by the Sessions Judge on the basis of the 1986 Act. If we apply the provisions of the 1986 C Act then the appellant was not a juvenile on the date of the crime but if we apply Sections 2(k), 2(1), 7-A, 20 and 49 of the 2000 Act read with Rules 12 and 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules') all persons who were below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to 1-4-2001, would be D treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of 18 years on or before the date of the commencement of the 2000 Act and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted. E 7. So far as the present case is concerned, as already indicated, the age of the appellant as on the date of th~,· commission of the offence i.e. 06.05.1995 was 17 years; 11 months and 5 days and hence less than 18 years, and hence when we apply provisions of the 2000 Act, the appellant has F to be treated as a juvenile, being less than 18 years of age on the date of the crime and hence entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the 2000 Act read with Rules.

8. We are therefore inclined to affirm the order of G conviction, however, the sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is sent to the concerned Juvenile Justice Court for imposing adequate sentence. Appeal is allowe(J as above. R.P. Appeal partly allowed. H