New Delhi: Finding that a 20-year-old man convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a 4-year-old girl in December 2017 was a juvenile at the time of the offence, the Supreme Court ordered his release last week.
In a judgment passed 3 March, a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol upheld the conviction of the 20-year-old, but set aside his death sentence.
This was after the Supreme Court received a report from a Madhya Pradesh trial court, concluding that the accused was actually 15 years and 4 months old at the time the crime was committed.
He had already spent over 5 years in custody, since December 2017, and had been on death row since May 2018.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, says that when a minor below 16 years of age is found to have committed a heinous crime, the maximum sentence that he or she can be awarded is three-years’ stay in a special home, with “reformative services including education, skill development, counselling, behaviour modification therapy, and psychiatric support during the period of stay in the special home”.
“In the present case, the appellant is held to be less than 16 years, and therefore, the maximum punishment that could be awarded is up to 3 years,” the Supreme Court said. “The appellant has already undergone more than 5 years. His incarceration beyond 3 years would be illegal, and, therefore, he would be liable to be released forthwith.”
The accused was earlier believed to be an adult, and tried as such. His age at the time of the crime only emerged as a question when he moved an application to this end in the Supreme Court in 2019 — months after his conviction and death sentence were upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Also Read: Fast-track courts for rape and POCSO cases effective, govt likely to extend scheme for 3 yrs
What is the case about
According to the prosecution, the victim went missing on 15 December 2017. Her body was found the next morning, next to a river in a village in Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh. The victim’s aunts then told the police that she was last seen around 6.30pm on that day with the accused.
The police arrested the accused on 16 December. However, he claimed that he was falsely implicated.
The additional sessions judge of the district court awarded him the death sentence for murder in May 2018, on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
He was convicted under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 376 (rape), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
In a 31-page judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirmed his conviction and death sentence in November 2018. Among other factors, the conviction was based on the aunts’ testimony that the victim was last seen with the accused. The court also noted that the DNA profile from the undergarments of the victim matched with the DNA profile of the accused, and that his disclosure led the police to recover blood-stained clothes.
Confirming the death sentence, a two-judge bench of the high court asserted that “the crime against the girl child is on the rise, therefore… extreme punishment should be awarded in such a crime (sic)”.
“The manner in which the commission of offence was so meticulously and carefully planned, coupled with the sheer brutality and apathy for humanity in the execution of the offence, in every probability he has potency to commit similar offence in future and there is no possibility that he can be reformed or rehabilitated,” the high court added.
The high court judgment said that the accused was a “young unmarried boy aged about 19 years at the time of commission of offence”.
What does the law say
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, allows the trial of juveniles in conflict with law in the age group of 16-18 years as adults, in certain heinous cases. Heinous offences have been defined as those that have a minimum punishment of seven years or more under the law.
Under Section 18 of the JJ Act, 2015, if a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) finds a child under 16 years of age has committed a heinous offence, it can pass various punishments. However, the maximum sentence in such a case is a three-year stay in a special home.
During this time, the JJB has to take full care of ensuring the best facilities that could be provided to the child towards reformative services including education, skill development, counselling and psychiatric support.
Section 9 of the JJ Act says that an accused can raise the plea of being a juvenile at the time of the alleged crime before any court, and at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case.
The law, therefore, allows any accused who is found to be a child on the date of offence to avail of all the benefits under the Act, even if the case has been finally decided by then, and if the person has already attained the age of majority by then.
It also says that if a court finds a person was a child at the time of committing the offence, it should forward the child to the JJB, and that if the court has passed any sentence against the child, the sentence “shall be deemed to have no effect”.
How SC concluded that he was a child
While the appeals of the accused were pending in the Supreme Court, he filed an application in March 2019 claiming juvenility and benefits under the JJ Act, 2015. He had chosen not to challenge his conviction yet, and had only claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the incident.
The Supreme Court, on 28 September last year, asked the trial court to examine whether he was a juvenile on the date of the incident. The apex court order said that to arrive at a conclusion, the trial court should consider all the relevant documents as well as get a medical check-up done for the accused.
The trial court submitted a 20-page report in October last year, concluding that the accused’s date of birth is 25 July 2002. He was, therefore, found to be 15 years and four months old on the date of the incident. This was on the basis of oral evidence of his guardian, and the present headmistress, retired headmaster and five teachers of his school, which is a government primary school. It had also cited other documents like his marksheets, school leaving certificate and a birth certificate from his school.
In response, the Madhya Pradesh government demanded that an ossification test (a bone test) be conducted by a medical board to determine his age instead.
The Supreme Court referred to past judgments to discuss what would happen when an accused is held to be a child under the 2015 Act, after he has already been convicted.
It asserted that a trial and conviction by a sessions court would not be held to be vitiated even though subsequently the person tried is found to be a child at the time of commission of the offence. It said that the law intended to give benefit to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of the offence only with respect to its sentence part.
The court then ruled, “The conviction of the appellant is upheld; however, the sentence is set aside… He shall be released forthwith.”
(Edited by Geethalakshmi Ramanathan)
Also Read: ‘Vulgar, obscene & profane’: Delhi HC pans makers of TVF show College Romance, upholds FIR