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. However, the sentence imposed by such a court cannot survive if the accused is found to be a juvenile on the date of the offence.
The observation was made by a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi while hearing an appeal filed by Dinesh Kumar against his conviction and sentence for murder. The appellant had been tried as an adult by a regular court and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a term of seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. During the pendency of the appeal, it was established that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence.
The appellant contended that the conviction rendered by the regular court was ex facie illegal and must be set aside on the ground of juvenility. Rejecting this argument, Justice Aravind Kumar, authoring the judgment, observed that the conviction recorded on the merits, even though by a regular court, would sustain. The bench clarified that the illegality lies not in the conviction but in the sentence imposed.
The court stated, ‘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.’ This principle was applied to the facts of the case, leading to the affirmation of the conviction while setting aside the sentence.
Taking into account that the appellant had already undergone more than the statutory maximum period of detention permissible under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the court accepted his plea of juvenility and directed his release. The bench further clarified that the sentence of life imprisonment, 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 also affirmed the applicability of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which provides that a juvenile dealt with under the Act shall not suffer any disqualification attached to a conviction under another law. It directed that 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 was directed to ensure compliance with the consequential statutory requirements concerning the records.
The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was set aside, resulting in the release of the appellant who had already served a period exceeding the maximum permissible detention under the JJ Act, 2000.
The appearance for the appellant included Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Mr. Umakant Misra, Mr. Debabrata Dash, Mr. Soubhagya Ranjan Pati, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Ms. Anu Tiwari, and Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR. The respondents were represented by Mr. Rajesh K. Singh, Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR, Ms. Deepika Singh, Mr. Amit Pandey, Mr. Rovins Fr. Verma, Ms. Sabarni Som, Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, and Mr. Gaj Singh, Advocates.