
Shilpa
Mittal v State of NCT of Delhi
Criminal
Appeal no. 34 of 2020
Arising
out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7678 of 2019, decided on 9th
Jan. 2020
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/28877/28877_2019_15_1502_19348_Judgement_09-Jan-2020.pdf
Bench: Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Relevant Provisions of Law: Section 304 – Indian Penal Code (1860); Section 2 (12), 2 (13), 2(35)
& 2 (45) – Juvenile Justice Act (2015) and Article 142 – Constitution of
India.
Facts:
A juvenile was
alleged to have committed an offence punishable
under Section 304 of the Indian
Penal Code,1860 (IPC). Such an offence was punishable with a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life or up to 10 years and fine in the first part and imprisonment up to 10 years or fine, or both in the second part. No minimum sentence had prescribed for such offence.
Since, the
juvenile in the present case was above 16 and below 18 years of age, the
Juvenile Justice Board held the crime to be of a heinous nature and ruled that
the juvenile should be tried as an adult. Further appeal was made to the High
Court, wherein it was held that since no minimum sentence is prescribed for such
an offence, the said offence did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). This judgement of High Court was challenge
under the present appeal.
Issue:
Whether an offence
prescribing a maximum sentence of more than 7 years imprisonment but not
providing any minimum sentence, or providing a minimum sentence of less than 7
years, can be considered to be a ‘heinous offence’ within the meaning of
Section 2(33) of the JJ Act?
Held:
Firstly,
the Court traced the historical backdrop as well as significance associated
with the JJ Act. After doing so, the Court indulged in a
bare reading of sections of JJ act which clearly showed that a
child or a juvenile is a person who has not completed 18 years
of age, and a child in conflict with law is a child/juvenile who
commits an offence when that child/juvenile has not completed
18 years of age. After this, the Court considered the legal definitions of the existing
categories of offences.
·
‘Petty offences’ as defined under Section 2(45), refers to offences for which the maximum punishment provided under any law, is imprisonment up to
3 years.
·
‘Serious offences’ have been
defined as offences for which
punishment under any law is imprisonment between 3 to 7 years.
·
‘Heinous offences’ have been
defined to mean offences for which
the minimum punishment under any law is imprisonment for 7 years or more.
After considering all this, the Court recognized, that the issue in the
present case was that there was a fourth
category of offences which wasn’t
defined under the JJ Act viz., offence where the
maximum sentence is more than 7 years imprisonment, but
no minimum sentence
or minimum sentence of less than
7 years is provided. Furthermore, the bench found it difficult to ascertain
whether the legislature intended to include this fourth category of offences in
the category of heinous offences or not. However, after conducting a thorough
study of the act and applying the principles of interpretation in accordance
with the Golden Rule of Interpretation laid down in the case of Grey vs.
Pearson and the precedent in this regard laid down under the case of McMonagle
vs. Westminster City Council, the Court opined that there was an
existing, fourth category of offences which had not been dealt under the JJ
Act.
Additionally, propounding upon the aspects related to the
Legislative Intent the Court held that, it cannot be said with certainty
whether the Legislature intended to include this fourth category of offences
within the ambit of ‘heinous offences’ or not.
But the bench did hold, that there was a gross mistake committed by the
framers of the legislation and the fact was, that the legislation didn’t take
into consideration the fourth category of offences.
Despite of recognizing this legislative gap within the act, the Court
asserted that it might be able to fill such gaps within the legislations by
saying that these offences should be treated as heinous offences but, it won’t
be able to legislate on such issues. Because, on the one hand there existed
some offences within this category which may in general parlance could be
termed as heinous. Furthermore, there were many other offences in this regard,
which cannot be termed as heinous offences.
Consequently,
the Court held its decision for the welfare of the children. Due to absence of
any action by legislature, the SC exercised its powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution and held that from the date when the JJ Act came into force, all
children who have committed offences falling within such fourth category shall
be dealt with in the same manner as children who have committed ‘serious
offences’.