- Case
- OM PRAKASH @ ISRAEL @ RAJU @ RAJU DAS v. UNION OF INDIA (Supreme Court of India, 08-01-2025)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Constitution of India, Indian Penal Code, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment refers to the appellant being charged with culpable homicide amounting to murder, but does not discuss any specific section of the IPC in detail.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The judgment mentions Section 313 CrPC, noting that the appellant's statement recorded under this section was unreliable for determining juvenility. The court stated, "There can be no reliance on the statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973 particularly when the Appellant was asked to give his particulars for the purpose of recording his statement."
Constitution of India, 1949: * Article 14: The judgment mentions that a child who lives in a discriminatory environment requires equitable treatment on the touchstone of Article 14.
* Article 15(3): The judgment notes that Article 15(3) read with Article 39 (e) and (f), Article 45 and Article 47 of the Constitution, in the form of the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy, emphasise on the need for special care for children. Article 15(3) itself states, "(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.”
* Article 32: The judgment refers to a Writ Petition filed under Article 32, stating that it raised an independent prayer for the enforcement of a right conferred under a social welfare legislation.
* Article 39: The judgment cites Article 39, stating, "Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.—The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing— (a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means to livelihood; (b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good; (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment; (d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women; (e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength; (f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.”
* Article 45: The judgment quotes Article 45, stating, "Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the age of six years. —The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.”
* Article 47: The judgment mentions that Article 47 emphasizes the need for special care for children.
* Article 72: The judgment discusses the power of pardon under Article 72, stating it is a sovereign power of compassion and empathy, meant to remove or reduce pains, penalties, and punishment. It also notes that the President does not amend or modify or supersede the judicial record when exercising this power. The judgment further states that a challenge to the exercise of power under Article 72 would involve limited judicial review.
* Article 136: The judgment mentions that the Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment if it resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights.
* Article 161: The judgment discusses the power of pardon under Article 161, stating it is a sovereign power of compassion and empathy, meant to remove or reduce pains, penalties, and punishment. It also notes that a challenge to the exercise of power under Article 161 would involve limited judicial review.
* Article 226: The judgment refers to a Writ Petition filed before the High Court invoking Article 226, laying a challenge to the Presidential Order.
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986: The judgment discusses the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (Act No. 53 of 1986) as the first Central enactment for juveniles, recognizing the need to treat them separately from adults. It defines "juvenile" under Section 2(h) as a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years. The judgment also mentions Section 32 of the 1986 Act, which made it obligatory on the part of the Competent Authority to make due inquiry as to the age of the person brought before it. Section 32 states, "32. Presumption and determination of age.—(1) Where it appears to a competent authority that a person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise than for the purpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile, the competent authority shall make due inquiry as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or not, stating his age as nearly as may be. (2) No order of a competent authority shall be deemed to have become invalid merely by any subsequent proof that the person in respect of whom the order has been made is not a juvenile, and the age recorded by the competent authority to be the age of the person so brought before it shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person."
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: The judgment discusses the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Act No. 56 of 2000) as a more comprehensive and modern exercise, taking note of Article 15(3), clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39, Article 45 and Article 47 of the Constitution. It mentions that Section 2(k) and 2(l) of the 2000 Act as amended by Act No. 33 of 2006 defines a juvenile. Section 2(k) states, "(k) "juvenile" or "child" means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age;" and Section 2(l) states, "(l) “juvenile in conflict with law” means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence.” The judgment also refers to Section 7A, along with the Explanation to Section 20 of the 2000 Act, which were introduced by an amendment vide Act No. 33 of 2006. Section 7A states, “7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court.-(1)Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. (2) If the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect." Section 20 states, "20. Special provision in respect of pending cases- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any Court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that Court as if this Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence: Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile. Explanation. In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of clause (l) of section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed."
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007: The judgment discusses Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, stating that it must be understood and appreciated in tune with the principal Act. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 is described as a rule of evidence, providing a hierarchy of documents for determining the age of a juvenile. Rule 12 states, "12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age. XXX XXX XXX (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining- (a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b)and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.”
General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle of *actus curiae neminem gravabit*, stating that no one shall be prejudiced by an act of the Court. It also emphasizes the importance of truth and justice, stating that justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth and that the primary duty of a Court is to unearth the truth. The judgment also discusses the doctrine of *parens patriae*, stating that the Court as representative of the Sovereign will adopt the same standard which a reasonable and responsible parent would do.
