Holding

The appellant was a juvenile (approximately 17 years old) at the time of the offence; his conviction is upheld, the sentence is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Juvenile Justice Board to determine an appropriate fine and compensation.

Summary

The appellant was convicted under IPC sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty) and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. He later claimed to have been a juvenile at the time of the offence, asserting an age of 13 years 8 months, but documentary and medical evidence established his age as about 17 years, making him a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Supreme Court held that the conviction could stand but the sentence could not be imposed by a regular criminal court; instead, the matter must be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate punishment, primarily a fine under the 1986 Act. The Court also clarified the operation of Section 20 of the 2000 Act, which allows pending cases to continue in the same court but requires forwarding the juvenile to the Board for sentencing. Consequently, the fine of Rs.100 imposed by the trial court was deemed inadequate and the case was remanded to the Juvenile Justice Board to determine a proper fine and compensation to the victim's family.

Issues considered

The appellant's age at the time of the offence and whether he qualifies as a juvenile under Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Whether the conviction under IPC sections 304B and 498A can be upheld despite the appellant's juvenile status.
What punishment is permissible for a juvenile convicted of a serious offence and whether the sentence imposed by the regular court must be set aside.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 41-B, s. 50-A, s. 54
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 302, s. 304B, s. 498A
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986s. 21
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000s. 20, s. 21(1)(e), s. 2(k), s. 7A

Subjects

juvenile justicejuvenilityage determinationdowry deathIPC 304BIPC 498AconvictionsentenceJuvenile Justice BoardSection 20 JJ Act 2000Section 7A JJ Act 2000child in conflict with law

Judgment

[2013] 13 S.C.R. 764

A JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH & ANR. f
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 2003)

JULY 10, 2013
B
[T.S. THAKUR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.]

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000:
c ss. 2(k), 7A and 20 - Prosecution of accused u/ss. 147,
302, 3048 and 498A /PC - During trial, accused raised plea
of juvenifity underJuvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Plea rejected,
finding him to be above 16 years of age - After trial, convicted
uls. 3048 and 498A and sentenced to 7 years and 2 years
D imprisonment respectively with fine of Rs. 1001- - Conviction
and sentence confirmed in High Court - In appeal to this
Court, accused took plea of juvenility under Juvenile Justice
Act, 2000 - On direction of Supreme Court trial court's report
as to age of the accused stating him to be of 13 years 8
E months on the date of incident as per his school certificate
and as per medical examination and other records his age
was 17 years - Held: Per Madan Lokur, J: The accused was
17 years of age on the date of occurrence, and hence a
juvenile under 2000 Act - His conviction is confirmed - The
F punishment which can be awarded to the accused is to require
him to pay afine under clause (e) of s.21(1) of Juvenile Justice
Act, 1986 - The fine of Rs. 1001- imposed by trial court is
inadequate, in view of the gravity of the offences - Therefore,
matter remanded to Juvenile Justice Board for determining
G appropriate quantum of fine - Per Thakur, J.
(Supplementing) - Since the accused was above 16 years
of age, on the date of occurrence, being not a juvenile under
1986 Act, there was no error of jurisdiction in trying the

H 764
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 765
U.P.
.)' accused - Being a juvenile under 2000 Act, in view of ss. 7A A
and 20, the court is not obliged to set aside the conviction,
but 017ly his sentence awarded by the regular court can be set
aside and making reference to the Juvenile Justice Board -
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - s. 21(1)(e) - Penal Code, 1860
- ss. 304B and 498A. B
Trial of a person - By a regular criminal court - Who, at
subsequent stage found to be a juvenile - Measures for
prevention of such situation - Suggested.
... '·
Maxim - 'expressio unius est exclusio alterious' - c
Applicability of.
Per Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Report given by the Additional Sessions
Judge whereby he has stated that the appellant was a
juvenile on the date of the incident, has been examined D
,)
and there is no reason to reject it. There is documentary
evidence to show from the school admission register
(which has not been tampered with) that the date of birth
of the appellant is 31st August 197 4. That apart, the
medical examination of the appellant conducted on 8th E
July 1988 less than two months after the incident, also
shows his age to be about 17 years. This was not
doubted by the Additional Session Judge while rejecting
the bail application of the appellant and was also not
doubted by the High Court while granting bail to him. F
Therefore, it does appear that the appellant was about 17
years of age when the incident had occurred and that he
had set up a claim of being a juvenile or child soon after
his arrest and before the charge sheet was filed. Thus,
' -'I the appellant was a juvenile or a child within the meaning G
of that expression as defined in Section 2(k) of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000. [Para 21] [785-D-G]
2.1. A plain reading of section 3048 IPC, which
explains a dowry death, makes it clear that its ingredients H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A are (a) the death of a woman is caused by burns or a
bodily injury or that it occurs otherwise than under
normal circumstances; (b) the death takes place within
seven years of her marriage; (c) the woman was
subjected, soon before her death, to cruelty or
B harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry. In the present case, in the facts of the case, the
ingredients of Section 304-8 of the IPC were made out.
[Paras 24 and 25) (786-G-H; 787-D]
C 2.2. On the basis of the facts found by the Trial Court
as well as the High Court from the evidence on record
that a case of causing a dowry death had convincingly
been made out against the appellant. There is no
apparent reason to disturb the concurrent findings of fact
D arrived at by the Trial Court and the High Court and so
the conviction of the appellant must be upheld. [Para 27)
[787-G-H]
2.3. The case of the juvenile has to be examined on
merits. If it is found that the juvenile is guilty of the offence
E alleged fo have been committed, he simply cannot go
unpunished. However, as the law stands, the punishment
to be awarded to "him or her must be left to the Juvenile
Justice Board constituted under the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This is the
F plain requirement of the Act. [Para 42) [791-C-D]
2.4. In the present case, the offence was committed
by the appellant when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was
in force. Therefore, only the 'punishments' not greater
than those postulated by the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986
G ought to be awarded to him. This is the requirement of
Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The 'punishments'
provided under the 1986 Act are given in Section 21
thereof. [Para 43) [791-E-F]
H 2.5. A perusal of the 'punishments' provided for
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 767
U.P.
under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 indicate that given A
the nature of the offence committed by the appellant,
advising or admonishing him [clause (a)] is hardly a
'punishment' that can be awarded since it is not at all
commensurate with the gravity of the crime. Similarly,
considering his age of about 40 years, it is completely B
illusory .to expect the appellant to be released on
probation of good conduct, to be placed under the care
of any parent, guardian or fit person [clause (b)]. For the
.. ;a. same reason, "'the appellant cannot be released on
probation of good conduct under the care of a fit c
institution [clause (c)] nor can he be sent to a special
home under Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986
which is intended to be for the rehabilitation and
reformation of delinquent juveniles [clause (d)]. The only
realistic punishment that can possibly be awarded to the
D
appellant on the facts of this case is to require him to pay
_)
a fine under clause (e) of Section 21 (1) of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 1986. [Para 44] [793-C-E]

2.6. While dealing with the case of the appellant
under the IPC, the fine imposed upon him is only Rs.100/ E
-. This is ex facie inadequate punishment considering the
fact that the deceased suffered a dowry death. [Para 45]
[793-F]
)o
2.7. The appropriate course of action in the present F
case WOIJld be to remand the matter to the jurisdictional
Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for
determining the appropriate quantum of fine that should
be levied on the appellant and the compensation that
-'f G
should be awarded to the family of the deceased. [Para
46] [793-H; 794-A-B]

Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra 2013
(6) SCALE 778; Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2012) 9 SCC 750: 2012 (10) SCR 540 - relied on. H

-1
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A Jayendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1981) 4.
CC 149;
Bhoop Ram vs. State of U. P. (1989) 3 SCC 1; Pradeep
Kumar vs. State of U.P. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 419; Bhola
Bhagat and other vs. State of Bihar (1997) 8 SCC 720: 1997
(4) Suppl. SCR 711; Upendra Kumar vs. State of Bihar
B (2005) 3 SCC 592; Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab (2005)
12 SCC 615: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 90; Vijay Singh vs. State
of Delhi (2012) 8 SCC 763: 2012 (7) SCR 434; Satish @
Dhanna vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2009) 14 SCC 187:
2009 (6) SCR 486; Dharambir vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010)
c 5 SCC 344: 2010 (5) SCR 137; Hari Ram vs. State of
Rajasthan (2009) 13 SCC 211: 2009 (7) SCR 623; Daya
Nand vs. State of Haryana (2011) 2 SCC 224: 2011 (1) SCR
173 - referred to.

3.1. The purpose of the Act is to rehabilitate a juvenile
D in conflict with law with a view to reintegrate him into
society. This is by no means an easy task and it is worth
researching how successful the implementation of the
Act has been in its avowed purpose in this respect. [Para
54] [796-D]
E •
3.2. The Act and the Model Rules clearly constitute
an independent code for issues concerning a child or a
juvenile, particularly a juvenile in conflict with law. This
code is intended to safeguard the rights of the child and
F a juvenile in conflict with law and to put him in a category
separate and distinct from an adult accused of a crime.
[Para 57) [796-H; 797-A]

3.3. Keeping in mind the standards and safeguards
required to be met as per international obligations, it
G becomes obligatory for every Magistrate before whom an
accused is produced to ascertain, in the first instance or
as soon thereafter as may be possible, whether the
accused person is an adult or a juvenile in conflict with
law. The reason for this, obviously, is to avoid a two-fold
H
•
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 769
U.P.
)'
difficulty: first, to avoid a juvenile being subjected to A
procedures under the normal criminal law and de hors the
Act and the Rules, and second, a resultant situation, where
the "trial" of the juvenile is required to be set aside and
quashed as having been conducted by a court not having
jurisdiction to do so or a juvenile, on being found guilty, B
going 'unpunished'. This is necessary not only in the best
interests of the juvenile but also for the better
• :1 administration of criminal justice so that the Magistrate or
the Sessions Judge (as the case may be) does not waste
~ his time and energy on a "tri~I". [Para 58) [797-B-D] c
3.4. It must be appreciated by every Magistrate that
when an accused is produced before him, it is possible
that the prosecution or the investigating officer may be
,,,,, under a mistaken impression that the accused is an
adult. If the Magistrate has any iota of doubt about the D
juvenility of an accused produced before him, Rule 12
provides that a Magistrate may arrive at a prima facie
conclusion on the juvenility, on the basis of his physical
appearance. In such a case, this prima facie opinion
should be recorded by the Magistrate. Thereafter, if E
custodial remand is necessary, the accused may be sent
to jail or a juvenile may be sent to an Observation Home,
) as the case may be, and the Magistrate should
simultaneously order an inquiry, if necessary, for
determining the age of the accused. Apart from anything F
else, it must be appreciated that such an inquiry at the
earliest possible time, would be in the be!!t interests of
the juvenile, since he would be kept away from adult
-~
under-trial prisoners and would not be subjected to a
regi~en in jail, which may not be conducive to his well G
being. It would also be in the interests of better
administration of criminal justice. It is, therefore, enjoined
upon every Magistrate to take appropriate steps to
ascertain the juvenility or otherwise of an accused
person brought before him or her at the earliest possible H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.
{
A point of time, preferably on first production. [Para 59]
[797-E-H; 798-A-B]

3.5. Due to his juvenility, a juvenile in conflict with law
may be presumed not to know or understand the legal
procedures making it difficult for him to put forth his claim
B
for juvenility when he is produced before a Magistrate.
Added to this are the factors of poor education and poor
economic set up that are jointly the main attributes of a ~. .,
juvenile in conflict with law, making it difficult for him to
negotiate the legal procedures. [Para 60] [798-C-D]
c :-

3.6. It is difficult to expect a juvenile in conflict with
law to know his rights upon apprehension by a police
officer and if the precautions that have been suggested
are taken, the best interests of the child and thereby of
D society will be duly served. Therefore, it may be ....
presumed, by way of a benefit of doubt that because of
his status, a juvenile may not be able to raise a claim for
juvenility in the first instance and that is why it becomes
the duty and responsibility of the Magistrate to look into
E this aspect at the earliest point of time in the proceedings
before him. This may be a satisfactory way of avoiding
the recurrence of a situation such as the one dealt with.
[Para 61] [799-8-C] ~

Abuzar Hossain vs. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC
F 489: 2012 (9) SCR 244 - relied on.

3.7. International obligations as laid down in the
Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Beijing
Rules require the involvement of the parents or legal 'r--
G guardians in the legal process concerning a juvenile in
conflict with law. [Para 62] [799-D-E]

3.8. The procedures laid down in Cr.P.C., in as much
as they are for the benefit of a juvenile or a child, apply
,
with full rigour to an apprehension made of a juvenile in
H
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 771
U.P.
conflict with law under Section 10 of the Act. If these A
procedures are followed, the probability of a juvenile, on
apprehension, being shown as an adult and sent to
judicial custody in a jail, will be considerably minimized.
If these procedures are followed, as they should be, along
with the requirement of a Magistrate to examine the B
juvenility or otherwise of an accused person brought
before him, subjecting a juvenile in conflict with law to a
't j
trial by a regular Court may become a thing of the past.
[Para 67] [802~E-G]

D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416:
c
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284 - relied on.

3.9. Keeping in mind the domestic law of India and
the international obligations, it is directed that the
. ). provisions of Cr.P.C. relating to arrest and the provisions D
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 being the law of the land, should be scrupulously
followed by th.e concerned authorities in respect of
juveniles in conflict with law. [Para 69] [803-C-D]
E
3.10. It is also directed that whenever an accused,
who physically appears to be a juvenile, is produced
before a Magistrate, he or she should form a prima facie
.. t opinion on the juvenility of the accused and record it. If
any doubt persists, the Magistrate should conduct an age
F
inquiry as required by Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to determine
the juvenility or otherwise of the accused person. In this
regard, it is better to err on the side of caution in the first
--+ instance rather than have the entire proceedings
reopened or vitiated at a subsequent stage or a guilty G
person go unpunished only because he or she is found
to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence of the incident.
[Para 70] [803-E-G]

H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A Pawan vs. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 15 SCC 259: 2009
(3) SCR 468 - referred to.

Per T.S. Thakur, J. (Supplementing):

1.1. The appellant was above sixteen years as on the
8 date of the commission of the offence, no matter the
enquiry report submitted by the Trial Court has held him
to be less than 16 years on that date. It is important to
mention that the question whether the appellant was less ~ f

or more than 16 is important not because the benefit of
C the 2000 Act depends on that question, but because the
answer to that question has a bearing on whether the
conviction of the appellant was itself illegal, hence liable
to be set aside. This is because, the benefit of the 2000
Act, would be in any case available to the appellant, so
D long as he was less than 18 years cif age on the crucial .(..
date, and it is nobody's case that he was above that age
on that date. [Para 6] [806-F-H; 807-A]

Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 13 SCC 211:
E 2009 (7) SCR 623 - referred to.

1.2. As on the date of the commission of the offence
and right up to the date the trial Court convicted and
sentenced the appellant to imprisonment, the provisions
of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (in short, the "1986 Act")
F held the field. Apart from the fact that the upper age limit
for claiming juvenility was 16 years for boys, the question
whether a person was or was not a juvenile could be
decided by the Court on the basis of documentary or
medical evidence or on a fair assessment of both of them.
G That is because, the provisions of 1986 Act, did not,
prioritise the basis on which such determination could be
made. It was left for the accused to produce evidence or
a
the Court to direct medical examination for determining
his age. The weightage which the Rules framed under the
H 2000 Act provide and the order of preference settled for
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 773
U.P.
y purposes of placing reliance upon evidence coming from A
different sources were not in vogue while the 1986 Act
held the field. The result was that the Court was free to
determine the question on the basis of one such piece
of evidence or on a cumulative effect and on such
evidence that may have been produced before it. It is · 8
necessary to bear in mind this dichotomy in the legal
framework while determining whether the trial Court had
committed an error of jurisdiction in holding the appellant
t * to be not a juvenile and hence triable by it. [Para 7] [807-
D-H; 808-A] C
-- 1.3. The question whether the appellant was a
juvenile was. first raised before the trial Court at a very
early stage of the case. The appellant had prayed for bail
on that basis, which appears to have led the Court to
direct assessment of his age on the basis of a medical D
examination. The medical examination, however,
determined the age of the appellant to be 17 years, which
took him beyond the upper age of juvenility under the
1986 Act. No attempt was made by the appellant to
adduce any evidence to support his claim of being a E
juvenile nor was any documentary evidence in the form
of school certificate or otherwise adduced. As a matter
of fact, the chapter was totally forgotten, and the trial
aHowed to proceed to its logical conclusion without tl1e
appellant raising his little finger against the competence F
of the Court or agitating the issue regarding his age in
any higher forum. The conviction and sentence recorded
by the trial Court was also assailed on merits before the
High Court but not on the ground that the trial was
_,.,
_ vitiated on account of the appellant being a juvenile, not G
triable by an ordinary criminal Court. [Para 8] [808-8-E]

1.4. It was only in this Court that long after the appeal
was filed that a fresh claim for benefit under the 2000 Act
was made by the appellant in which this Court directed a
H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 13 S.C.R.

A fresh enquiry that was conducted in terms of Rule 12 of "{
the Rules framed under the 2000 Act. The enquiry report
submitted supports the appellant's claim of his being a
juvenile under Section 2(k) of the 2000 Act, hence, entitled
to the benefits admissible thereunder. Although an
B attempt was made by the respondent-State to assail the
finding that the appellant was less than 18 years of age
on the date of the occurrence. There is no cogent reason
to hold that the appellant was more than 18 years on the
date of the occurrence. The determination of age of the -* i
c appellant, by the trial Court, on the basis of the first medical
examination is fully supported and corroborated by the
medical examination of the appellant conducted in the
-
<

course of the enquiry directed by this Court . The medical
examination conducted by the Board of Doctors has
determined the appellant's age to be 40 years as on 24th
D
December, 2010 which implies that he was around 17 Yz -~
years old on the date of the occurrence. Superadded to
the medical evidence is the documentary evidence that
has come to light in the course of the enquiry in the form
of the Family Register (Ex. Ka-3) maintained by the
E Panchayat and proved by A.P.W.2-Gram Panchayat
Officer. According to this witness who spoke from the
register, the appellant was born in the year 1969. The
Electoral roll for the year 2009 for the constituency in ~
which the appellant's village falls, also mentions this age
F to be 37 years, implying thereby that he was around 17
years old on the date of the occurrence. Deposition of the
Gram Sabha Head examined as PW-12 in the course of
the enquiry is supportive of the age of the appellant as
given in the Electoral roll. The two medical examinations
G -t-·
and the documents come from proper custody and lend
complete corroboration to the appellant's age being above
16 years on the date of the occurrence. Besides, what
cannot be lightly brushed away is the fact that the
appellant was a married man on the date of the occurrence
H and that the charge levelled against him was one of dowry
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 775
U.P.
harassment and dowry death of his wife who was 19 years A
old at the time of her demise. If the appellant was only 13
years and 8 months old as suggested by the school
certificate the question of his harassing the deceased
almost six years his senior would not arise for he would
be only an adolescent while his wife-the deceased was a B
grown up girl who could hardly get harassed by a mere
child so young in age that he had barely cut his teeth. The
trial Court did not in that view commit any error of
l' ;..-
jurisdiction in trying the appellant for the offences alleged

- against him. [Para 8) [808-E-H; 809-A-GJ

1.5. While the appellant was above 16 years of age
on the date of the commission of the offence, he was
c

certainly below 18 years and hence entitled to the benefit
of the 2000 Act, no matter the later enactment was not on
the statute book on the date of the occurrence. [Para 9) D
Jo:
[809-H; 810-A]

2.1. The conviction cannot however be set aside for
more than one reason. Firstly because there was and is
• no challenge to the order of conviction recorded by the E
Courts below in this case either before the High Court or
before this Court. As a matter of fact the plea of juvenility
before this Court by way of an additional ground stopped
~
r short of challenging the conviction of the appellant on the
ground that the Court concerned had no jurisdiction to F
try the appellant. Secondly because the fact situation in
the case at hand is that on the date of the occurrence the
appellant was above 16 years of age. He was, therefore,
not a juvenile under the 1986 Act that covered the field
at that point of time, nor did the 1986 Act deprive the trial
G
Court of its jurisdiction to try the appellant for the offence
he was charged with. Repeal of the 1986 Act by the 2000
Act raised the age of juvenility to 18 years. Parliament
provided for cases which were either pending trial or
were, after conclusion of the trial, pending before an
H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A appellate or a revisional Court by enacting Section 20 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000.
[Para 9, 10] [810-B-E]

2.2. The provision u/s. 20 of 2000 Act starts with a
non-obstante clause, which implies that the provisions
8
have an overriding effect on all other provisions
contained in the enactment. The provision deals with
proceedings pending against a juvenile in any court. The
provision sanctions the continuance of such pending
proceedings in the very same court, as if the 2000 Act had
C not been enacted.The provision requires the Court
seized of the matter to record a finding as to whether the
juvenile has committed an offence. If the finding is
--
against the juvenile in that he is found to have committed
an offence, the court is required to forebear from passing
D an order of sentence and instead forward the juvenile to
the Board, which shall then pass an order in accordance
with the provisions of the Act, as if it had been satisfied
on inquiry under the Act that the juvenile had committed
an offence.In all pending cases including trial, revision.
E appeal or any other criminal proceedings the
determination of juvenility shall be in terms of clause
(I) of Section 2 even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or
before the date of commencement of the 2000 Act. [Para
11] [811-E-H; 812-A-C]
F
2.3. A case that was pending before 'any Court'
(which expression would include both the trial Court and
the High Court) would continue in that Court, who would
not only proceed with the trial and/or hearing of the case
as if the 2000 Act was not on the Statute book, but also +
G record a finding as to the guilt or innocence of the
juvenile. Far from stipulating a specific prohibition, the
provisions of Section 20, make it obligatory for the Court
concerned to proceed with the matter and record its
conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the juvenile. The
H
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 777
U.P.
y
prohibition is against the Court passing an order of A
..J
sentence against the juvenile, for which purpose the
•' juvenile has to be forwarded to the Board for appropriate
, orders. [Para 12) [812-D-F]
2.4. In all such cases wh~re the accused was above B
16 years but below 18 years of age on the date of
occurrence, the proceedings pending in the Court
concerned will continue and be taken to their logical end
~

* except that the Court upon finding the juvenile guilty

- would not pass an order of sentence against him. Instead
he shall be referred to the Board for appropriate orders
under the 2000 Act. Applying that proposition to the
present case, the trial Court and the High Court could and
c

indeed were legally required to record a finding as to the
guilt or otherwise of the appellant. All that the Courts
.> could not have done was to pass an order of sentence, D
for which purpose, they ought to have referred the case
to the Juvenile Justice Board. [Para 18) [817-B-D]

2.5. Section 7A (2) of the 2000 Act prescribes the
procedure to be followed, when a cl~im of juvenility is E
made before any Court. Although a claim of juvenility can

.. ,. be raised by a person at any stage and before any Court,
upon such Court finding the person to be a juvenile on
the date of the commission of the offence, it has to
forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate F
orders and the sentence, if any, passed shall be deemed
to have effect. There is no provision suggesting, or
making it obligatory for the Court before whom the claim
for juvenility is made, to set aside the conviction of the
• --+- · juvenile on the ground that on the date of commission
G
of the offence he was a juvenile, and hence not triable by
an ordinary criminal court. Applying the maxim of
expressio unius est exclusio alterious, it would be
reasonable to hold that the law in so far as it requir~s a
reference to be made to the Board, excludes by
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A necessary implication any intention on the part of the
-,..-
legislature requiring the Courts to set aside the
~
conviction recorded by the lower court. The Parliament, ...
it appears, was content with setting aside the sentence
of imprisonment awarded to the juvenile and making of
B a reference to the Board without specifically or by
implication requiring the court concerned to alter or set
aside the conviction. [Paras 19 and 20] [817-E, G-H; 818-
A-CJ )t' ,

2.6. There is no reason why the conviction of the
c appellant should be interfered with, simply because he
is under th.e 2000 Act, a juvenile entitled to the benefit of
being referred to the Board for an order under Section
15 of the said Act. There is no gainsaying that even if the
-
appellant had been less than sixteen years of age, on the
D date of the occurrence, he would have been referred for )".._
trial to the Juvenile Court in terms of Section 8 of the
1986 Act. The Juvenile Court would then hold a trial and
record a conviction or acquittal depending upon the
evidence adduced before it. In an ideal situation, a case
E filed before an ordinary Criminal Court when referred to
the Board or Juvenile Court may culminate in a
conviction at the hands of the Board also. But law does
not countenance a situation where a full-fledged trial and __,
even an appeal ends in a conviction of the accused but •
F the same is set aside withou~ providing for a trial by the
Board. [Para 23] [819-D-G]

Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2005) 3
SCC 551: 2005 (1) SCR 1019; Bijender Singh v. State of
G
Haryana and Anr. (2005) 3 SCC 685: 2005 (2) SCR 1131 ·+- '
Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 5 SCC 344: 2010
(5) SCR 137; Daya Nand v. State of Haryana (2011) 2 SCC
224: 2011 (1) SCR 173; Kalu@ Amit v. State of Haryana
(2012) 8 SCC 34; Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P.
1995 Supp (4) SCC 419; Bhola Bhagat & Ors. v. State of.
H
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 779
U.P.
'r Bihar (1997) 8 sec 720: 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 711; A
Upendra Kumar v. State of Bihar (2005) 3 SCC 592; Vaneet
_Kumar Gupta @ Dharmindher v. State of Punjab (2009) 17
sec 587 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
B
In the Judgment of Madan B. Lokur:
2009 (3) SCR 468 referred to Para 11
:- :*
(1981) 4 sec 149 referred to Para 29
-.. (1989) 3 sec 1 referred to Para 30 c
1995 Supp (4) sec 419 referred to Para 31
1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 711 referred to Para 32
(2005) 3 sec 592 referred to Para 33
,)I D
2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 90 referred to Para 34
2012 (7) SCR 434 referred to Para 35
2009 (6) SCR 486 referred to Para 36
2010 (5) SCR .137 referred to Para 36 E
2009 (7) SCR 623 referred to Para 37

- "'r 2011 (1) SCR 173
2012 (10) SCR 540
referred to
relied on
Para 38
-Para 39
F
2013 (6) SCALE 778 relied on Para 46
2~12 (9) SCR 244 relied on Para 60
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284 relied on Para 63
--t- In the Judgment of T.S. Thakur: G
2009 (7) SOR623 referred to Para 6
2005 (1) SCR 1019 relied on Para 13
2005 (2) SCR 1131 relied on Para 14
H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R
r

A
r

~010 (5) SCR 137 relied on Para 15 'i'
2011 (1) SCR 173 relied on Para 16
(2012) s sec 34 relied on Para 17
1995 Supp (4) sec 419 relied on Para 22
B
1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 711 relied on Para 22
(2005) 3 sec 592 relied on Para 22
(2009) 11 sec 587 relied on Para 22 '* '
c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 763 of 2003. - t

From the Judgment & Order dated 23.05.2003 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in
D Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 1990. )'l.._

Sushil Kumar Jain, Anurag Gohil, Ruchika Gohil for the
Appellants.

Ameet Singh, Mukul Singh, Pragati Neekhra for the
E Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
--(
MADAN 8. LOKUR, J. 1. Three principal issues arise for •
consideration in this appeal. The first is whether the appellant
F
was a juvenile or a child as defined by Section 2(k) of the
Juvenile Justice (Care a.nd Protection of Children) Act, 2000
on the date of occurrence of the offence he was charged with.
On a consideration of the Report called for by this Court on this

G
question, the issue must be answered in the affirmative.
+
2. The second is whether the conviction of the appellant
can be sustained on merits and, if so, the sentence to be
awarded to the appellant. In our opinion the conviction of the
appellant must be upheld and on the quantum of sentence, he
H ought to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of
JITENDRA SINGH @ 8A8800 SINGH v. STATE OF 781
U.P. [MADAN 8. LOKUR, J.]
_-..,
Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of A
Children) Act, 2000 read with Section 15 thereof.

3. The third questiqn is whether any appropriate measures
can be taken to prevent the recurrence of a situation, such as
the present, where an accused is subjected to a trial by a 8
regular Court having criminal jurisdiction but he or she is later
found to be a juvenile. In this regard, we propose to give
appropriate directions to all Magistrates which, we hope, will
)I
"' prevent such a situation from arising again.

The facts: c
· 4. On the midnight of 23rd I 24th May 1988 it is alleged
that Asha Devi was set on fire by the appellants and two other
persons. A demand for dowry, which she was unable to meet,
.,......_ resulted in the unfortunate incident. D
5. On 24th May 1988 at about 5 a.m., Asha Devi's uncle
came to know of the incident and he lodged a complaint with
the local police. In the meanwhile, Asha Devi had been taken
to the District Hospital where she succumbed to the burns.
E
6. After completing the investigation, the local police filed
a charge sheet on 10th July 1988 against the appellants and
'r two other persons. The charge sheet alleged offences
committed under Section 147, Section 302, Section 304-8 and
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'IPC'). F
7. Thereafter the case proceeded to trial and the Sessions
Judge, Rae 8areli in S.T. No. 186of1988 delivered judgment
on 30th August 1990 convicting the appellants and acquitting
' -+-- the other two persons. The appellants were convicted under
G
Section 304-8 of the !PC (dowry death) and sentenced to
undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment. They were also
convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC (husband or relative
of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and sentenced
to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.100/- each. H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

~- -
A 8. Feeling aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 1990 in the
Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. By its judgment
and order dated 23rd May 2003 the High Court dismissed the
Criminal Appeal. This is reported as 2003 (3) ACR
B 2431=MANU/UP/2115/2003.

9. Against the judgment and order passed by the
Allahabad High Court the appellants came up in appeal to this
Court. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of this
C appeal the second appellant (father of the first appellant) died
and therefore only the appeal filed by the first appellant, the
husband of Asha Devi, survives.

10. During the pendency of these proceedings the
appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 16974 of
D 2010 for raising additional grounds. He sought to contend that
on the date of commission of the offence, he was a juvenile or
child within the meaning of that expression as defined in
Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as. the 'Act').
E According to the appellant his date of birth was 31st August
1974 and therefore, when the offence is alleged to have been
committed, he was about 14 years of age.

11. The application for urging additional grounds was
F considered by this Court and by an order dated 19th November
2010 it was held, while relying upon Pawan v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2009) 15 SCC 259 that prima facie there was
material which necessitated an inquiry into the claim of the
appellant that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of
the offence. Accordingly, the following direction was given:
G
"In the result we allow the appellant to urge the
additional ground regarding juvenility of the appellant on
the date of the commission of the offence and direct the
Trial Court to hold an enquiry into the said question and
H submit a report as expeditiously as possible, but not later
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 783
U.P. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.)
...,. than four months from today. We make it clear that the Trial A
Court shall be free to summon the concerned School,
Panchayat or the Electoral office record or any other record
from any other source which it considers necessary for a
proper determination of the age of the appellant. We also
make it clear that in addition to the above, the Trial Court B
shall be free to constitute a Medical Board comprising at
least three experts on the subject for determination of the
age of the appellant, based on medical tests and
Jt-• examination."
"'
Report of the Additional Sessions Judge:
c
""'*
12. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli acted on
the order dated 19th November 2010 and registered the
proceedings as Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 2010. He then
submitted his Report dated 18th February 2011 in which he D
,..4 accepted the claim of the appellant that his date of birth was
31st August 1974. As such, the appellant was a juvenile on the
date of commission of the offence.

13. For the purposes of preparing his Report, the
E
Additional Sessions Judge examined several witnesses
including A.P.W. 1 Samar Bahadur Singh, Principal, Pre-
Middle School, Sohai Bagh who produced the school
'r admission register pertaining to the admission of the appellant
in the school. The register showed the date of birth of the
appellant as 31st August 1974 and the Additional Sessions F
Judge found that the register had not been tampered with.

14. The Additional Sessions Judge also examined A.P.W.
11 Dr. Birbal who was a member of the Medical Board
. ---+- constituted by him. The Medical Board examined the appellant G
on 24th December 2010 and gave his age as about 40 years.
Reference 'in this context was also made to an ossification test
conducted on the appellant while he was in judicial custody in
the District Jail in Rae Bareli during investigation of the case.
/
H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

"-(
A The ossification test was conducted on 8th July 1988 and that ' -
determined the appellant's age as about 17 years.

15. At this stage, it may be mentioned that on the basis of
the ossification test the appellant had applied for bail before
the Additional Sessions Judge in Rae Bareli being Bail -,
B
Application No. 435 of 1988. The Additional Sessions Judge
noted that while the age of the appellant was determined at
about 17 years by the Chief Medical Officer, there could be a
difference of about 2 years either way and therefore by an order
)l_ ..
dated 13th July 1988 the application for bail was rejected.
c F-
16. The appellant then moved the Lucknow Bench of the
Allahabad High Court by filing a bail application which was
registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1859(B) of
1988. By an order dated 25th November 1988 the Allahabad
D High Court granted bail to the appellant while holding, inter a/ia, L
that it was difficult to discard the opinion of the Chief Medical
Officer regarding the appellant's age.

17. Coming back to the Report, the Additional Sessions
Judge also examined A.P.W. 5 Pankulata the younger sister
E
of deceased Asha Devi. She stated that Asha Devi was about
4 or 5 years older than the appellant and that it was not
unknown, apparently in their community, for the wife to be older
-(
than the husband. The record of the case shows that Asha Devi
died at the age of about 19 after having been married for about
F 4% years. This would mean that the appellant was married to
Asha Devi when he was about 9 years old and that on the date
of the incident he was about 14 years old.

18. The Additional Sessions Judge also examined A.P.W. -4-- ..,
G 8 Sanoj Singh, husband of Pankulata, who gave a statement '
in tune with that of his wife. The Additional Sessions Judge also
examined A.P.W. 9 Narendra Bahadur Singh husband of
A.P.W. 10 Kanti Singh. All these witnesses stated to the effect
that apparently in their community the wife is normally older than
H the husband at the time of marriage. All these persons also
JITENDRA SINGH@ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 785
U.P. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
produced proof of their age to show that the wife (A.P.W. 5 A
Pankulata and A.P.W. 10 Kanti Singh) was older than her
husband at the time of their marriage.

19. On the basis of the material before him, the Additional
Sessions Judge accepted the claim of the appellant that he was B
younger than his wife at the time of marriage and that his date
of birth was 31st August 1974.

~ ·~ 20. Objections have been filed to this Report by the State
of Uttar Pradesh, but the only objection taken is that the
documents pertaining to the education of the appellant were c
produced after a great delay and not immediately. It was also
submitted that it is improbable that a girl of about 15 years of
age would get married to a boy of about 9 years of age.

21. The Report given by the Additional Sessions Judge D
,,.,>.. has been examined with the assistance of learned counsel and
there is no reason to reject it. While the circumstances are
rather unusual, the fact remains that there is documentary
evidence to show from the school admission register (which
has not been tampered with) that the date of birth of the
E
appellant is 31st August 1974. That apart, the medical
examination of the appellant conducted on 8th July 1988 less
than two months after the incident, also shows his age to be
r about 17 years. This was not doubted by the Additional Session
Judge while rejecting the bail application of the appellant and
F
was also not doubted by the Allahabad High Court while
granting bail to him. Therefore, it does appear that the appellant
was about 17 years of age when the incident had occurred and
that he had set up a claim of being a juvenile or child soon after
his arrest and before the charge sheet was filed. In other words,
the appellant was a juvenile or a child within the meaning of that G
expression as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act.

Should the conviction be upheld:

22. The next question that arises is whether the conviction
H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A of the appellant is justified or not. Before examining the
evidence on record, it is necessary to mention that both the Trial
Court as well as the High Court have concurrently found that
the appellants had demanded dowry from Asha Devi and that
she had been set on fire for not having complied with the
B demands for dowry.

23. Section 304-B of the IPC which is the more serious
offence for which the appellant has been found guilty, reads as
follows:

c "304-8. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of awoman
is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
D any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry
death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to
have .caused her death.

Exp/anation.-For the purpose of this sub-section,
E
"dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
F years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

24. A plain reading of this section, which explains a dowry
death, makes it clear that its ingredients are (a) the death of a
woman is caused by burns or a bodily injury or that it occurs ...,._,
G otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) the death takes '
place within seven years of her marriage; (c) the woman was
subjected, soon before her death, to cruelty or harassment by
her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry.

H 25. In the present case, both the Trial Court and the Hi!=!h
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 787
U.P. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
Court have found that Asha Devi had died of burn injuries as A
per the medical evidence; she had been set on fire on the
midnight of 23/24 May 1988 and taken to the hospital at about
4 a.m. on 24th May 1988 where she succumbed to the burn
injuries at about 5.30 a·.m.; she had been married to the
appellant for about 4% years before her death; and that the B
evidence of PW-1 Ram Bahadur (uncle of Asha Devi) and PW-
3 Tej Bahadur Singh (father of Asha Devi) disclosed that
demands were being made by the appellants for dowry soon
~ Jt before her death. Apart from cash, a demand was made by the
in-laws of Asha Devi for a gold chain and a horse. Since the c
demands were not complied with, Asha Devi was frequently
beaten and harassed. She had brought this to the notice of her
uncle as well as her father. In fact, before her demise, she had
written a letter to her father about the beating and harassment
given to her due to the inability to meet the dowry demands.
-~
D
The letter was proved by the prosecution and was relied on by
the Trial Court as well as the High Court in accepting the version
of the prosecution. Clearly, therefore, the ingredients of Section
304-B of the IPC were made out.

26. However, the case put up by the appellant was that E
Asha Devi had accidentally caught fire while she was cooking
and therefore it was a case of accidental death. This was not

- )'
accepted by both the Trial Court as well as the High Court since
there was no explanation given for the delay of about 4 hours
in taking Asha Devi to the hospital if the case was really one F
of accidental death. Moreover, there was nothing to suggest that
the appellant or anyone in the family had made any attempt to
extinguish the fire.

. --¥ 27. There is no doubt, on the basis of the facts found by
G
the Trial Court as well as the High Court from the evidence on
record that a case of causing a dowry death had convincingly
been made out against the appellant. There is no apparent
reason to disturb the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by
the Trial Court and the High Court and so the conviction of the
appellant must be upheld. H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A Sentence to be awarded: --< '
28. On the sentence to be awarded to a convict who was
a juvenile when he committed the offence, there is a dichotomy
of views.
B ..
29. In the first category of cases, the conviction of the
juvenile was upheld but _the sentence quashed. In Jayendra v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 4 SCC 149 the conviction of
the appellant was confirmed though he was held to be a child )t ..
as defined in Section 2(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Children Act,
c 1951. However, he was not sent to an 'approved school' since
he was 23 years old by that time. His sentence was quashed
and he was directed to be released forthwith.

30. Similarly, in Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P. (1989) 3
D SCC 1 this Court followed Jayendra and while upholding the
conviction of the appellant who was 28 years old by that time,
the sentence awarded to him was quashed.

31. In Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P., 1995 Supp (4)
SCC 419 yet another case under the Uttar Pradesh Children
E Act, 1951 the conviction of the appellant was upheld but since
he was 30 years old by that time, his sentence was set aside.

32. In Bhola Bhagat and other v. State of Bihar, (1997) 8
-{
sec 720 the conviction of the appellant was upheld by this ·-
F Court but the sentence was quashed keeping in mind the _.
provisions of the Bihar Children Act, 1970 read with the Bihar
Children Act, 1982 and the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

33. In Upendra Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 3 SCC
592 this Court followed Bhola Bhagat and upheld the conviction --+ . -
G of the appellant but quashed the sentence awarded to him. '

34. In Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC
615 one of the appellants was a juvenile within the meaning of
that expression occurring in Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice
H Act, 1986. This Court held that if the accused was a juvenile
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 789
U.P. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

"r on the date of occurrence and continues to be so, then in that A
event he would have to be sentenced to a juvenile home.
However, if on the date of sentence, the accused is no longer
a juvenile, the sentence imposed on him would be liable to be
set aside. In this context, reference was made to Bhoop Ram.
B
35. Finally in Vijay Singh v. State of Delhi, (2012) 8 SCC
763 the conviction of the appellant was upheld but the sentence
was quashed since he was about 30 years old by that time.

36. The second category of cases includes Salish @
Dhanna v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 14 SCC 187 C
wherein the conviction of the appellant was upheld but the
sentence awarded was modified to the period of detention
already undergone. Similarly, in Dharambir v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (201 O) 5 sec 344 the conviction of the appellant was
sustained but since the convict had undergone two years and D
four months of incarceration, the sentence awarded to him was
quashed.

37. The third category of cases includes Hari Ram v. State
of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211 wherein the appellant was
E
held to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence.
His appeal against his conviction was allowed and the entire
case remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal in
accordance with law .

. 38. In Daya Nand v. State of Haryana, (2011) 2 SCC 224 F
this Court followed Hari Ram and directed the appellant to be
produced before the Juvenile Justice Board for passing
appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
G
39. The fourth category of cases includes Ashwani Kumar
Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 9 SCC 750 in
which the conviction of the appellant was upheld and the
records were directed to be placed before the Juvenile Justice
Board for awarding suitable punishment to the appellant.
H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A 40. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that 'i''
in one set of cases this Court has found the juvenile guilty of "
the crime alleged to have been committed by him but he has
gone virtually unpunished since this Court quashed the
sentence awarded to him. In another set of cases, this Court
B has taken the view, on the facts of the case that the juvenile is
adequately punished for the offence committed by him by
serving out some period in detention. In the third set of cases,
this Court has remitted the entire case for consideration by the
~-
jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board, both on the innocence or "-

c guilt of the juvenile as well as the sentence to be awarded if
.....
the juvenile is found guilty. In the fourth set of cases, this Court
has examined the case on merits and after having found the
juvenile guilty of the offence, remitted the matter to the
jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board on the award of sentence.
D 41. In our opinion, the course to adopt is laid down in A..... ·
Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000. This reads as follows:

"20. Special provision in respect of pending cases.-
E 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 '-(
F 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: ~4 ~
G
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.

H Explanation.-ln all pending cases including trial, revision,
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 791
U.P. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a A
juvenile iii conflict with law, in any court, the determination
of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of clause
(/)'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 B
had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times
when the alleged offence was committed."

42. It is clear that the case of the juvenile has to be
examined on merits. If it found that the juvenile is guilty of the C
offence alleged to have been committed, he simply cannot go
unpunished. However, as the law stands, the punishment to be
awarded to him or her must be left to the Juvenile Justice Board
constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000. This is the plain requirement of Section
.-J D
I • 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000. In other words, Ashwani Kumar Saxena should be
followed.

43. In the present case, the offence was committed by the
. appellant when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force. E
Therefore, only the 'punishments' not greater than those
postulated by the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 ought to be
awarded to him. This is the requirement of Article 20(1) of the
Constitution. The 'punishments' provided under the Juvenile
Justice Act, 1986 are given in Section 21 there:of and they read F
as follows:

"21. Orders that may be passed regarding delinquent
juveniles.-(1) Where a Juvenile Court is satisfied on
- - -Y inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offenc~, then, G
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any
other law for the time being in force, the Juvenile Court
may, if it so thinks fit,-

(a) allow the juvenile to go home after advice or
admonition; H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

(b) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good
conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian
or other fit person, on such parent, guardian or other fit
person executing a bond, with or without surety as that
Court may require, for the good behaviour and well-being
B of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years;
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986

(c) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good
conduct and placed under the care of any fit institution for ~ ~

the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for any
c period not exceeding three years;

(cf) make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a
special home,-

D (1) in the case of a boy over fourteen years of age
or of a girl over sixteen years of age, for a period ;;, ...
of not less than three years;

(ii) in the case of any other juvenile, for the period
until he ceases to be a juvenile:
E
Provided that xxx xxx xxx.

Provided further that xxx xxx xxx;
""'(
(e) order the juvenile to pay a fine if he is over fourteen
F years of age and earns money.

(2) Where an order under clause (b), clause (c) or clause
(e) of sub-section (1) is made, the Juvenile Court may, if
it is of opinion that in the interests of the juvenile and of
G the public it is expedient so to do, in addition make an --+- --
order that the delinquent juvenile shall remain under the
supervision of a probation officer named in the order during
such period, not exceeding three years, as may be
specified therein, and may in such supervision order
H
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 793
U.P. [MADAN 8. LOKUR, J.]
'r impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due A
supervision of the delinquent juvenile:

Provided that xxx xxx xxx.

(3) xxx xxx xxx.
B
(4) xxx xxx xxx."

44. A perusal of the 'punishments' provided for under the
~ f- Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 indicate that given the nature of the
offence committed by the appellant, advising or admonishing
him [clause (a)] is hardly a 'punishment' that can be awarded
c
since it is not at all commensurate with the gravity of the crime.
Similarly, considering his age of about 40 years, it is completely
illusory to expect the appellant to be released on probation of
good conduct, to be placed under the care of any parent,
D
r.~ guardian or fit person [clause (b)]. For the same reason, the
appellant cannot be released on probation of good conduct
under the care of a fit institution [clause (c)] nor can he be sent
to a special home under Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice Act,
1986 which is intended to be for the rehabilitation and
reformation of delinquent juveniles [clause (d)]. The only realistic E
punishment that can possibly be awarded to the appellant on
the facts of this case is to require him to pay a fine under clause
(e) of Section 21(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

45. While dealing with the case of the appellant under the F
IPC, the fine imposed upon him is only Rs.100/-. This is ex facie
inadequate punishment considering the fact that Asha Devi
suffered a dowry death.

.. .,.... 46. Recently, one of us (T.S. Thakur, J.) had occasion to
deal with the issue of compensation to the victim of a crime. G
An illuminating and detailed discussion in this regard is to be
found in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra,
2013 (6) SCALE 778. Following the view taken therein reacl
with the provisions of Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 the appropriate cou~e H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A of action in the present case would be to remand the matter to
the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
for determining the appropriate quantum of fine that should be
levied on the appellant and the compensation that should be
B awarded to the family of Asha Devi.

Avoiding a recurrence:

47. How can a situation such as the one t1.~: has arisen in
this case (and in several others in the past) be avoided? We
C need to only appreciate and understand a few provisions of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
(the Act) and the Model Rules framed by the Government of
India called the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, 2007 (the Rules).
D
48. The preamble to the Act draws attention to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child which was ratified by the
Government of India on 11th December 1992. The Convention
has prescribed, inter alia, a set of standards to be adhered to
E in securing the best interests of the child. For the present
purposes, it is not necessary to detail those standards.
However, keeping this in mind, several special procedures, over
and above or despite the Criminal Procedure Code (for short
the Code) have been laid down for the benefit of a juvenile or
a child in conflict with law. These special procedures are to be
F found both in the Act as well as in the Rules. Some (and only
some) of them are indicated below.

49. A Juvenile Justice Board is constituted under Section
6 of the Act to deal exclusively with all proceedings in respect
G of a juvenile in conflict with law. When a juvenile charged with
an offence is produced before a Juvenile Justice Board, it is
required to hold an inquiry (not a trial) and pass such orders
as it deems fit in connection with the juvenile (Section 14 of the
Act).
H
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 795
U.P. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.)
y
50. A juvenile or a child in conflict with law cannot be kept A
in jail but may be temporarily received in an ObseNation Home
' during the pendency of any inquiry against him (Section 8 of
the Act). If the result of the inquiry is against him, the said juvenile
may be received for reception and rehabilitation in a Special
Home (Section 9 of the Act). The maximum period for reception B
and rehabilitation in a Special Home is three years (Section
15 of the Act). Even this, in terms of Article 37 of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child, shall be a measure of last resort.
J~

..., 51. The provision dealing with bail (Section 12 of the Act)
places the burden for denying bail on the prosecution . c
~ Ordinarily, a juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on
bail, but he may not be so released if there appear reasonable
grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal or expose him to moral,
-' '
.A physical or psychological danger or that his release would D
defeat the ends of justice.

52. Orders that may be passed by a Juvenile Justice
Board against a juvenile, if it is satisfied that he has committed
an offence, 1are mentioned in Section 15 of the Act. One of the E
orders that may be passed, as mentioned above, is for his
repeption and rehabilitation in a Special Home for a period of
)''
three years, as a measure of last resort.

53. The Rules, particularly Rule 3, provide, inter alia, that
in all decisions taken within the context of administration of F
justice, the principle of best interests of a juvenile shall be the
primary consideration. What this means is that "the traditional
objectives of criminal justice, that is retribution and repression,
,----y must give way to rehabilitative and restorative objectives of
juvenile justice". The right to privacy and confidentiality of a G
juvenile is required to be protected by all means and through
all the stages of the proceedings, and this is one of the reasons
why the identity of a juvenile in conflict with law is not disclosed.
Following the requirements of the Convention on the Rights of
· the Child, Rule 3 provides that institutionalization of a child or H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A a juvenile in conflict with law shall be the last resort after a -(
reasonable inquiry and that too for the minimum possible ;.
duration.

Rule 32 provides that:
B "The primary aim of rehabilitation and social reintegration
is to help children in restoring their dignity and self-worth
and mainstream them through rehabilitation within the

c
family where possible, or otherwise through alternate care
programmes and long-term institutional care shall be of last
resort."

54. It is quite clear from the above that the purpose of the
Act is to rehabilitate a juvenile in conflict with law with a view
* "'-
..
to reintegrate him into society. This is by no means an easy
task and it is worth researching how successful the
D _A_ ~.
implementation of the Act has been in its avowed purpose in
this respect.

55. As regards procedurally dealing with a juvenile in
conflict with law, the Rules require the concerned State
E Government to set up in every District a Special Juvenile Police
Unit to handle the cases of juveniles or children in terms of the
provisions of the Act (Rule 84). This Unit shall consist of a
juvenile or child welfare officer of the rank of Police Inspector -{_
having an aptitude and appropriate training and orientation to
F handle such cases. He will be assisted by two paid social
workers having experience of working in the field of child
welfare of which one of them shall be a woman.

56. Rule 75 of the Rules requires that while dealing with a
G
juvenile or a child, except at the time of arrest, a police officer ''t-·-
shall wear plain clothes and not his uniform.

57. The Act and the Model Rules clearly constitute an
independent code for issues concerning a child or a juvenile,
particularly a juvenile in conflict'with law. This code is intended
H to safeguard the rights of the child and a juvenile in conflict with
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 797
U.P. [MADAN 8. LOKUR, J.]
y· law and to put him in a category separate and distinct from an A
adult accused of a crime.

58. Keeping in mind all these standards and safeguards
required to be met as per our international obligations, it
becomes obligatory for every Magistrate before whom an B
accused is produced to ascertain, in the first instance or as
soon thereafter as may be possible, whether the accused
person is an adult or a juvenile in conflict with law. The reason
J -f- for this, obviously, is to avoid a two-fold difficulty: first, to avoid
a juvenile being subjected to procedures under the normal
criminal law and de hors the Act and the Rules, and second, a
c
resultant situation, where the "trial" of the juvenile is required to
be set aside and quashed as having been conducted by a
court not having jurisdiction to do so or a juvenile, on being
found guilty, going 'unpunished'. This is necessary not only in
the best interests of the juvenile but also for the better D
~ ~
administration of criminal justice so that the Magistrate or the
Sessions Judge (as the case may be) does not waste his time
and energy on a "trial".

59. It must be appreciated by every Magistrate that when E
an accused is produced before him, it is possible that the
prosecution or the investigating officer may be under a
,. mistaken impression that the accused is an adult. If the
Magistrate has any iota of doubt about the juvenility of an
accused produced before him, Rule 12 provides that a F
Magistrate may arrive at a prima facie conclusion on the
juvenility, on the basis of his physical appearance. In our
opinion, in such a case, this prima facie opinion should be
recorded by the Magistrate. Thereafter, if custodial remand is
.. --Y" necessary, the accused may be sent to jail or a juvenile may
G
be sent to an Observation Home, as the case may be, and the
Magistrate should simultaneously order an inquiry, if necessary,
for determining the age of the accused. Apart from anything
else', it must be appreciated that such an inquiry at the earliest
possible time, would be in the best interests of the juvenile,
H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A since he would be kept away from adult under-trial prisoners
and would not be subjected to a regimen in jail, which may not
be conducive to his well being. As mentioned above, it would
also be in the interests of better administration of criminal
justice. It is, therefore, enjoined upon every Magistrate to take
B appropriate steps to ascertain the juvenility or otherwise of an
accused person brought before him or her at the earliest
possible point of time, preferably on first production.
~
60. It must also be appreciated that due to his juvenility, a ' '"
juvenile in conflict with law may be presumed not to know or
c understand the legal procedures making it difficult for him to
put forth his claim for juvenility when he is produced before a
Magistrate. Added to this are the factors of poor education and
poor economic set up that are jointly the main attributes of a
juvenile in conflict with law, making it difficult for him to negotiate
D the legal procedures. We say this on the strength of studies .-l ~
conducted, and which have been referred to by one of us (T.S.
Thakur, J) in Abuzar Hossai'h v. State of West Bengal, (2012)
10 sec 489. It is worth repeating what has been said:

E "Studies conducted by National Crime Records Bureau
(NCRB), Ministry of Home Affairs, reveal that poor
education and poor economic set up are generally the
main attributes of juvenile delinquents. Result of the 2011 ·~
study further show that out of 33,887 juveniles arrested in
F 2011, 55.8% were either illiterate (6, 122) or educated only
till the primary level (12,803). Further, 56.7% of the total
juveniles arrested fell into the lowest income category. A
similar study is conducted and published by B.N. Mishra
in his Book 'Juvenile Delinquency and Justice System', in
~-.
which the author states as follows:
G
"One of the prominent features of a delinquent is poor
. educational attainment. More than 63 per cent of
·delinquents are illiterate. Poverty is the main cause of
the1Nfliteracy. Due to poor economic condition they were
H compe~d to enter into the labour market to supplement
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 799
U.P. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
....,
their fAmily income. It is also felt that poor educational A
attainment is not due to the lack of intelligence but may
be due to Jack of opportunity."

61. Such being the position, it is difficult to expect a juvenile
in conflict with law to know his rights upon apprehension by a B
police officer and if the precautions that have been suggested
are taken, the best interests of the child and thereby of society
will be duly served. Therefore, it may be presumed, by way of
J -j- a benefit of doubt that because of his status, a juvenile may not
be able to raise a claim for juvenility in the first instance and
that is why it becomes the duty and responsibility of the
c
Magistrate to look into this aspect at the earliest point of time
in the proceedings before him. We are of the view that this may
be a satisfactory way of avoiding the recurrence of a situation
such as the one dealt with.
~·_A D
62. We may add that our international obligations as laid
down in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the
Beijing Rules require the involvement of the parents or legal
guardians in the legal process concerning a juvenile in conflict
with law. For example, a reference may be made to Article 40 E
of the Convention and Principles 7, 10 and 15 of the Beijing
Rules. That this is not unusual is clear from the fact that in civil
disptJtes, our domestic law requires a minor to be represented
)"
by a guardian.

'
~

The remedy: F

63. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC
416 this Court laid down some import~nt requirements for being
adhered to by the police "in all cases of arrest or detention till
. ---r legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive G
measures". The Criminal Procedure Code has since been
amended and some of the important requirements laid down
by this Court have been given statutory recognition. These are
equally applicable, mutatis mutandis, to a child or a juvenile in
conflict with law. H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A 64. Attention may be drawn to Section 41-B of the Code
which requires a police officer making an arrest to prepare a
memorandum of arrest which shall be attested by at least one
witness who is a member of the family of the person arrested
or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is
B made. The police officer is also mandated to inform the
arrested person, if the memorandum "f arrest is not attested
by a member of his family, that he has a right to have a relative
or a friend named by him to be informed of his arrest. Section
41-B of the Code reads as follows:
c "41-B. Procedure of arrest and duties of officer
making arrest.- Every police officer while making an
arrest shall-

(a) bear an accurate, visible and clear identification
D of his name which will facilitate easy identification;

(b) prepare a memorandum of arrest which shall
be-

(1) attested by at least one witness, who is a
E member of the family of the person arrested or a
respectable member of the locality where the arrest
is made;

(it) countersigned by the person arrested; and
F
(c) inform the person arrested, unless the
memorandum is attested by a member of his
family, that he has a right to have a relative or a
friend named by him to be informed of his arrest."

G 65. Every police officer making an arrest is also obliged
to inform the arrested person of his rights including the full
particulars of the offence for which he has been arrested or
other grounds for such arrest (Section 50 of the Code), the right
to a counsel of his choice and the right that the police inform
H his friend, relative or such other person of the arrest. Section
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 801
U.P. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
7 50-A of the Code is relevant in this regard and it reads as A
follows:

"50-A. Obligation of person making arrest to inform
--I
about the arrest, etc., to a nominated person.-(1)
Every police officer or other person making any arrest B
under this Code shall forthwith give the information
regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person
is being held to any of his friends, relatives or such other

"""" + persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the
arrested person for the purpose of giving such information.
c
(2) The police officer shall inform the. arrested person of
his rights under sub,section (1) as soon as he is brought
to the police station.

... ). (3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the
arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept
D

in the police station in such form as may be prescribed in
this behalf by the State Government.

(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such
arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the E
requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have
been complied with in respect of such arrested person."
r 66. When any person is arrested, it is obligatory for the
arresting authority to ensure that he is got examined by a F
medical officer in the service of the Central or the State
Government or by a registered medical practitioner. The
medical officer or registered medical practitioner is mandated
to prepare a record of such examination including any injury or
·--r mark of violence on the person arrested. Section 54 of the Code G
reads as follows:

"54. Examination of arrested person by medical
officer.-(1) When any person is arrested, he shall be
examined by a medical officer in the service of Central or
H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A State Government, and in case the medical officer is not ··--<
available, by a registered medical practitioner soon after
the arrest is made:

Provided that-where the arrested person is a female, the
examination of the body shall be made only by or under
B
the supervision of a female medical officer, and in case
the female medical officer is not available, by a female
registered medical practitioner.

(2} The medical officer or a registered medical practitioner
c so examining the arrested person shall prepare the record
of such examination, mentioning therein any injuries or
marks of violence upon the person arrested, and the
approximate time when such injuries or marks may have
been inflicted.
D
(3) Where an examination is made under sub-section (1),
a copy of the report of such examination ~hall be furnished
by the medical officer or registered me>dical practitioner,
as the case may be, to the arrested person or the person
nominated by such arrested person."
E
67. In our opinion, the procedures laid down in the Code.
in as much as they are for the benefit of a juvenile or a child,
apply with full rigour to an apprehension made of a juvenile in '"f
conflict with law under Section 10 of the Act. If these procedures
F are followed, the probability of a juvenile, on apprehension,
being shown as an adult and sent to judicial custody in a jail,
will be considerably minimized. If these procedures are
followed, as they should be, along with the requirement of a
Magistrate to examine the juvenility or otherwise of an accused
G person brought before him, subjecting a juvenile in conflict with 'r·
law to a trial by a regular Court may become a thing of the past.

Conclusion:

68. The· appellant was a juvenile on the date of the
H
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 803
U.P. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

! occurrence of the incident. His case has been examined on A
merits and his conviction is upheld. The only possible and
realistic sentence that can be awarded to him is the imposition
of a fine. The existing fine of Rs.100/- is grossly inadequate.
To this extent, the punishment awarded to the appellant is set
aside. The issue of the quantum of fine to be imposed on the 8
appellant is remitted to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board.
The jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board is also enjoined to
examine the compensation to be awarded, if any, to the family
J ~· ·of Asha Devi in terms of the decision of this Court in Ankush
Shivaji Gaikwad. c
69. Keeping in mind our domestic law and our international
obligations, it is directed that the provisions of the Criminal
Procedure Code relating to arrest and the provisions of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
... _). being the law of the land, should be scrupulously followed by
the concerned authorities in respect of juveniles in conflict with
D

law.

70. It is also directed that whenever an accused, who
physically appears to be a juvenile, is produced before a E
Magistrate, he or she should form a prima facie opinion on the
juvenility of the accused and record it. If any doubt persists, the
.,.... Magistrate should conduct an age inquiry as required by
Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 to determine the juvenility or otherwise of F
the accused person. In this regard, it is better to err on the side
of caution in the first instance rather than have the entire
proceedings reopened or vitiated at a subsequent stage or a
guilty person go unpunished only because he or she is found
,., ---r to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence of the incident.
G
71. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the
jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
for determining the appropriate quantum of fine that should be
levied on the appellant and the compensation that should be H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A awarded to the family of Asha Devi. Of course, in arriving at '(
its conclusions, the said Board will take into consideration the
facts of the case as al.so the fact that the appellant has
undergone some period of incarceration.

B 72. The appeal is partly allowed with the directions given
above.

T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. I have had the advantage of going
through the Judgment and Order proposed by my Esteemed
Brother Madan B. Lokur, J. The draft judgment formulates three
C issues for determination and answers them with remarkable
lucidity. While I agree with the view taken by Brother Lokur, J. -
that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of th~ commission
of the offence within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short , the
D "2000 Act") and that his conviction ought to be upheld, I wish
to add a few words of my own in support of that view. As
regards issue of general directions for guidance of the. Courts
below, I do not have any serious conceptual or other
disagreement with what has been proposed by my erudite
E Brother, for the proposed directions will promote the objects
underlying the 2000 Act, and prevent anomalous situations in
which juveniles in conflict with law may stand to get prejudiced
because of their economic and other handicaps/ because of
proverbial law's delay.
F 2. The facts have been succinctly summarised in the draft
judgment of Brother Lokur, J. which do not bear repetition
except to the extent the same is absolutely necessary to
elucidate the narrative in which the issues arise for our
consideration. The appellant was, together with three others,
G tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B and
498-A of the IPC by the Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli, who by
her judgment dated 30th August, 1990 convicted him and his
father Lal Bahadur Singh {since deceased) under Section 304-
B and sentenced both of them to undergo rigorous
H imprisonment for a period of seven years. They were also
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 805
U.P. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
convicted under Section 498-A of the f1PC and sentenced to A
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a pceriod of two years and
a fine of Rs.200/- each. The prosecution case against the
appellant and his co-accused was that they set on fire Asha
Devi, who was none other than the wife of the appellant, on the
night intervening 23rd and 24th May, 1988. The motive for the B
'I
commission of the offence was the alleged failure of the
deceased Asha Devi and her parents to satisfy the appellant's
demand for dowry.

3. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentenc;e the C
appellant and his co-accused filed Criminal Appeal No.464 of
1990, which failed and was dismissed! by the High Court in
terms of the order impugned in this appeal. Demise of the
second appellant during the pendenc}t of the present appeal
abated the proceedings qua him, le.:iving the appellant to
pursue the challenge mounted against the judgments and D
orders passed by the Courts below, by himself.

4. Seven years after the filing of the present appeal, the
appellant for the first time filed Crl. Misc. Peitition No.16974 of
2010 for permission to urge an additional g1round to the effect
that the appellant was on the date of the commission of the
·offence a juvenile within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the
2000, Act. It was urged on the basis of a school certificate that
the petitioner was on the date of commission of the offence:
hardly 14 years of age, and hence a juvenile entitled to the F
protection of the Act aforementioned. By an order dated 19th
November, 2010, this Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneo.YS
Petition, permitted the appellant to raise the additional plea and
directed an inquiry into the claim of juvenility of the appellant
by the Trial Court.
G-
5. The Trial Court accordingly conducted an inquiry,
examined the relevant school record and, based on the entirety
of the evidence including the medical evidence adduced in the

H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A course of the inquiry, held that according to the school '"(
certificate the age of tbe appellant on the date of the incident
in question was around 13 years 8 months on the date of the
incident. In doing so the trial Court gave credence to the school
certificate in preference to the medical examination and other
B equally compelling records touching upon the age of the
appellant like the Family Register maintained by the Panchayat
and the Electoral rolls according to which the appellant's age
was above 16 years and below 17 % years on the date of the
~ ~
occurrence. Although the respondent has objected to the finding
c of the Trial Court and the assessment of the age as on the date
of the commission of the offence, I am inclined to go along with
Lokur, J's finding as to age of the appellant when His Lordship
says:

"..... Therefore, it does appear that the appellant was about
D 17 years of age when the incident had occurred and that ,J..., '
he had set up a claim of beirig a juvenile or child soon "'
after his arrest and before the charge sheet was filed. In
other words, the appellant was a juvenile or a child within
the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 2{k)
E of the Act."

6. I may, independent of the conclusion drawn by my
esteemed brother, briefly state my reasons for holding that the
appellant was above sixteen years as on the date of the ~
commission of the offence, no matter the enquiry report
F
submitted by the Trial Court has held him to be less than 16
years on that date. But before I do so, it is important to mention
that the question whether the appellant was less or more than
16 is important not because the benefit of the 2000 Act ·''
G
depends on that question, but because the answer to that '1·-
question has a bearing on whether the conviction of the
appellant was itself illegal, hence liable to be set aside. I say
so because, the benefit of the 2000 Act, would be in any case ~·
available to the appellant, so long as he was less than 18 years
of age on the crucial date, and it is nobody's case that he was
H
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 807
U.P. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
above that age on that date. The decision of this Court in Hari A
Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 13 SCC 211 authoritatively
settles the legal position in that regard when it says:

"A juvenile who had not completed eighteen years on the
date of commission of the offence was also entitled to the B
benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, as if the
provisions of Section 2(k) had always bee'! in existence
even during the operation of the 1986 Act."

7. Equally important is the fact that the jurisdiction of.the
Court to try the appellant, as indeed any other person accused c
of commission of an offence would have to be determined by
reference to the legal position that prevailed as on the date the
Court tried, convicted and sentenced the appellant. It is
common ground that as on the date of the commission of the
• A_ offence and right up to the date the trial Court convicted and D
sentenced the appellant to imprisonment, the provisions of
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (in short, the "1986 Act") held the
field. Apart from the fact that the upper age limit for claiming
juvenility was 16 years for boys, the question whether a person
was or was not a juvenile could be decided by the Court on E
the basis of documentary or medical evidence or on a fair
assessment of both of them. That is because, the provisions
of 1986 Act, did not, prioritise the basis on which such
r determination could be made. It was left for the accused to
produce evidence or the Court to direct a medical examination F
for determining his age. The weightage which the Rules framed
under the 2000 Act provide and the order of preference settled
for purposes of placing reliance upon evidence coming from

,
...•· .....
different sources were not in vogue while the 1986 Act held the
field. The result was that the Court was free to determine the
question on the basis of one such piece of evidence or on a
G
cumulative effect and on such evidence that may have been
produced before it. It is necessary to bear in mind this
dichotomy in the legal framework while determining whether the
trial Court had committed an error of jurisdiction in holding the
H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A appellant to be not a juvenile and hence triable by it.
y
8. The question whether the appellant was a juvenile was
first raised before the trial Court at a very early stage of the
case. The appellant had prayed for bail on that basis, which
appears to have led the Court to direct assessment of his age )
B
on the basis of a medical examination. The medical
examination, however, determined the age of the appellant to
be 17 years, which took him beyond the upper age of juvenility
under the 1986 Act. What is noteworthy is that no attempt was ~ /
'

made by the appellant to adduce any evidence to support his
c claim of being a juvenile nor was any documentary evidence
in the form of school certificate or otherwise adduced. As a
matter of fact the chapter was totally forgotten, and the trial
~
allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion without the appellant
raising his little finger against the competence of the Court or
D agitating the issue regarding his age in any higher forum. The A ...
conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court was also
assailed on merits before the High Court but not on the ground
that the trial was vitiated on account of the appellant being a
juvenile, not triable by an ordinary criminal Court. It was only in
E this Court that long a,fter the appeal was filed that a fresh claim
for benefit under the 2000 Act was made by the appellant in
which this Court directed a fresh enquiry that was conducted
in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the 2000 Act.
'{
The enquiry report submitted supports the appellant's claim of
F his being a juvenile under Section 2(k) of the 2000 Act, hence,
entitled to the benefits admissible thereunder. Although an
attempt was made by the respondent-State to assail the finding
that the appellant was less than 18 years of age on the date of
the occurrence, we do not see any cogent reason to hold that
G the appellant was more than 18 years on the date of the -y~ < .
occurrence. In my view, the determination of age of the
appellant, by the trial Court, on the basis of the first medical
examination is fully supported and corroborated by the medical
examination of the appellant conducted in the course of the
enquiry directed by this Court by our order dated 19th
H
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 809
U.P. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
November, 2010. The medical examination conducted by the A
Board of Doctors has determined the appellant's age to be 40
years as on 24th December, 2010 which implies that he was
around 17 Yi years old on the date of the occurrence.
Superadded to the medical evidence is the documentary
evidence that has come to light in the course of the enquiry in B
the form of the Family Register (Ex. Ka-3) maintained by the
Panchayat and proved by A.P.W.2-Gokaran Nath Tiwari, Gram
Panchayat Officer. According to this witness who spoke from
the register, the appellant was born in the year 1969. The
Electoral roll for the year 2009 for the constituency in which the c
appellant's village falls, also mentions this age to be 37 years,
implying thereby that he was around 17 years old on the date
of the occurrence. Deposition of the Gram Sabha Head
examined as PW-12 in the course of the enquiry is supportive
of the age of the appellant as given in the Electoral roll. The D
two medical examinations and the documents referred to above
come from proper custody and lend complete corroboration to
the appellant's age being above 16 years on the date of the
occurrence. Besides, what cannot be lightly brushed away is
the fact that the appellant was a married man on the date of
the occurrence and that the charge levelled against him was E
one of dowry harassment and dowry death of his wife who was
19 years old at the time of her demise. If the appellant was only
13 years and 8 months old as suggested by the school
certificate the question of his harassing the deceased almost
six years his senior would not arise for he would be only an F
adolescent while his wife-the deceased was a grown up girl who
could hardly get harassed by a mere child so young in age that
he had barely cut his teeth. The trial Court did not in that view
commit any error of jurisdiction in trying the appellant for the
offences alleged against him. G

9. The upshot of the above discussion is that while the
appellant was above 16 years of age on the date of the
c~mmission of the offence, he was certainly below 18 years and ·
hence entitled to the benefit of the 2000 Act, no matter the la1ter H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R. ·

A enactment was not on the· statute book on the date of the
occurrence. The difficulty arises when we examine whether the
trial and the resultant order of conviction of the appellant, would
also deserve to be set aside as illegal and without jurisdiction.
The conviction cannot however be set aside for more than one
B reason. Firstly because th~re was and is no challenge to the
order of conviction recorded by the Courts below in this case
either before the High Court or before us. As a matter of fact
the plea of juvenility before this Court by way of an additional
ground stopped short of challenging the conviction of the
c appellant on the ground that the Court concerned had no
jurisdiction to try the appellant.

10. Secondly because the fact situation in the case at hand
-
is that on the date of the occurrence i.e. on 24th May, 1988 the
appellant was above 16 years of age. He was, therefore, not a
D juvenile under the 1986 Act that covered the field at that point
of time, nor did the 1986 Act deprive the trial Court of its
jurisdiction to try the appellant for the offence he was charged
with. Repeal of the 1986 Act by the 2000 Act raised the age
of juvenility to 18 years. Parliament provided for cases which
E were either pending trial or were, after conclusion of the trial,
pending before an appellate or a revisional Court by enacting
Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act,
2000 which is to the following effect:

F "20. Special provision in respect of pending cases.-
N otwith standing 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
G
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
H
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 811
U.P. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has A
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
B
juvenile.

Explanation.-·ln all pending cases including trial, revision,
....,
--f- 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 c
(1) 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
~
.A_ times when the alleged offence was committed." D

11. A plain reading of the above brings into bold relief the
following features that have a significant bearing on the
controversy at hand:

(i) The provision starts with a non-obstante clause, E
which implies that the provisions have an overriding
effect on all other provisions contained in the
J:' enactment.

(ii) The provision deals with proceedings pending F
against a juvenile in any court.

(iii) The provision sanctions the continuance of such
pending proceedings in the very same court, as if
'"'T the 2000 Act had not been enacted.
G
(iv) The provision requires the Court seized of the
matter to record a finding as to whether the juvenile
has committed an offence.
(v) If the finding is against the juvenile in that he is
H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A fou,nd to have committed an offence, the court is
required to forebear from passing an order of
sentence and instead forward the juvenile to the
Board, which shall then pass an order in
accordance with the provisions of the Act, as if it
B had been satisfied on inquiry under the Act that the
juvenile had committed an offence.

(vi) In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal
or any other criminal proceedings the determination

c
of juvenility shall be in terms of clause (I) of Section
2 even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before
the date of commencement of the 2000 Act.

12. It is manifest, that a case that was pending before 'any
-
Court' (which expression would include both the trial Court and
D the High Court) would continue in that Court, who would not only
proceed with the trial and/or hearing of the case as if the 2000
Act was not on the Statute book but also record a finding as to
the guilt or innocence of the juvenile. Far from stipulating a
specific prohibition, the provisions of Section 20, make it
E obligatory for the Court concerned to proceed with the matter
and record its conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the
juvenile. The prohibition is against the Court passing an order
of sentence against the juvenile, for which purpose the juvenile
has to be forwarded to the Board for appropriate orders. That
F is precisely the view which this Court has taken in a line of
decisions to which I may briefly refer at this stage.

13. In Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2005)
3 SCC 551, this Court while interpreting the provisions of
Section 20 (supra) held that the same is attracted to cases
G where the person, if male, has ceased to be a juvenile under
the 1986 Act being more than 16 years of age but had not yet
crossed the age of 18 years. Such cases alone were within the
comprehension of Section 20 of the Act, observed the Court,
in which the Court seized of the matter was bound to record
H
JITENDRA SINGH@ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 813
U.P. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
-, its conclusion, as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. The A
Court said:
"30. Section 20 of the Act as quoted above deals with the
special provision in respect of pending cases and begins
with non-obstante clause. The sentence "Notwithstanding
B
anything contained in this Act all proceedings in respect
of a juvenile pending in any Court in any area on date
of which this Act came into force" has great significance.
The proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any
court referred to in Section 20 of the Act is relatable to
proceedings initiated before the 2000 Act came into force c
and which are pending when the 2000 Act came into
force. The term "an'i. court" would include even ordina(Y.
criminal courts. If the person was a 'juvenile" under the
1986 Act the proceedings would not be pending in
. ~-
criminal courts. They would be pending in criminal courts D
only if the boy had crossed 16 years or girl had crossed
18 years. This shows that Section 20 refers to cases
where a 12.erson had ceased to be a iuvenile under the
1986 Act but had not 'i_et crossed the age of 18 'i.ears
then the 12.ending case shall continue in that Court as if E
the 2000 Act has not been 12.assed and if the Court finds
that the iuvenile has committed an offence, it shall record
such finding and instead of eassing an'i. sentence in
~ res12.ect of the iuvenile, shall forward the iuvenile to the
Board which shall 12.ass orders in res12.ect of that iuvenile." F
(emphasis supplied)
14. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in
Bijender Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr. (2005) 3 SCC
~~- 685, where this Court reiterated the legal position as to the true G
purpose of Section 20 in the following words:
"8. One of the basic distinctions between the 1986 Act and
the 2000 Act relates to age of males and females. Under
. the 1986 Act, a juvenile means a male juvenile who has
not attained the age of 16 years, and a female juvenile H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A who has not attained the age of 18 years. In the 2000 Act,
,-
the distinction between male and female juveniles on the
basis of age has not been maintained. The age-limit is
18 years for both males and females.
9. A person above 16 years in terms of the 1986 Act was
8 not a juvenile. In that view of the matter the question
whether a person above 16 years becomes 'juvenile"
within the purview of the 2000 Act must be answered
having regard to the object and purport thereof

c 10. In terms of the 1986 Act, a person who was not
juvenile could be tried in any court. Section 20 of the
2000 Act takes care of such a situation stating that
despite the same the trial shall continue in that court as
if that Act has not been passed and in the event. he is
found to be guilt'i. of commission of an offence, a finding _(__ .
D
to that effect shall be recorded in the iudgment of
conviction, if any, but instead of passing any sentence
in relation to the juvenile, he would be forwarded to the
Juvenile Justice Board (in short the 'BoardJ which shall
pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the Act
E
as if it has been satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has
committed the offence. A legal fiction has, thus, been
created in the said provision ...
~
xx xx xx
F 12. Thus, by reason of legal fiction, a person, although
not a juvenile, has to be treated to be one by the Board
for the g_urg_ose of sentencing which takes care of a
situation that the person although not a juvenile in terms
of the 1986 Act but still would be treated as such under ~["l
G the 2000 Act for the said limited purpose."
(emphasis supplied)
15. Reference may also be made to the decision of this
Court in Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 5 SCC 344
H where too this Court interpreted Section 20 of the Act, and the
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 815
U.P. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
---, explanation appended to the same, to declare that the provision A
enables t~e Court to determine the juvenility of the accused
even after conviction and while maintaining the conviction to set
aside the sentence imposed upon him and to forward the case
to the Board for passing an appropriate order in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. This Court observed: B
"11. It is plain from the language of the Explanation to
Section 20 that in all pending cases, which would include
_,_ not only trials but even subsequent proceedings by way
of revision or appeal, etc., the determination of juvenility
of a juvenile has to be in terms of Clause (/) of Section c
2, even if the juvenile ceases to be a juvenile on or before
1st April, 2001, when the Act of 2000 came into force,
and the provisions of the Act would apply as if the said
provision had been in force for all purposes and for all
material times when the alleged offence was committed. D
.)_
Clause (I) of Section 2 of the Act of 2000 provides that
'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. Section 20 also enables the E
Court to consider and determine the juvenility of a person
even after conviction by the regular Court and also
·~,
empowers the Court, while maintaining the conviction, to
set aside the sentence imposed and forward the case to
the Juvenile Justice Board concerned for passing F
sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Act of
2000."
16. Two recent decisions of this Court are a timely
reminder of the legal position on the subject to which I may
r--y gainfully refer at this stage. In Daya Nand v. State of Haryana G
(2011) 2 SCC 224, this Court, reiterated the law on the subject
in the following words.
"11. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was replaced by the
· Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

-1---
A 2000 that came into force on April 1, 2001. The 2000 Act
defined juvenile or child' in Section 2(k)to mean a
person who has not completed eighteenth years of age.
Section 69 of the 2000 Act, repealed the Juvenile Justice
Act, 1986. The 2000 Act, in Section 20 also contained a
B Q.rovision in regard to cases that were Q.ending when it
came into force and in which the accused at the time of
commission of offence was below 18 '£.ears of age but
above sixteen '£.ears of age (and hence, not a iuvenile
under the 1986 Act) and _consequentl'i. who was being
c tried not before a iuvenile court but a regular court."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Similarly in Kalu@ Amit v. State of Haryana (2012) -~.

8 SCC 34, this Court summed up the law in the following
passage:
D ~
"16. Section 20 makes a special provision in respect of
pending cases. It states that notwithstanding anything
contained in the Juvenile Act, all proceedings in respect
of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date
E on which Juvenile Act comes into force in that area shall
be continued in that court as if the Juvenile 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
F forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders
in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the
provisions of the Juvenile Act as if it had been satisfied
on inquiry under the Juvenile Act that the juvenile has
committed the offence. The Explanation to Section 20
makes it clear that in all pending cases, which would 1~
G
include not only trials but even subsequent proceedings
by way of revision or appeal, the determination of
juvenility of a juvenile would be in terms of Clause (/) of
Section 2, even if the juvenile ceased to be a juvenile
on or before 11412001, when the Juvenile Act came into
H
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 817
.U.P. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
......,, A
force, and the provisions of the Juvenile Act would apply
as if the said provision had been in force for all purposes
and for all material times when the alleged offence was
committed... "
18. The settled legal position, therefore, is that in all such
B
cases where the accused was above 16 years but below 18
years of age on the date of occurrence, the proceedings
pending in the Court concerned will continue and be taken to
. their logical end except that the Court upon finding the juvenile
7' guilty would not pass an order of sentence against him. Instead
he shall be referred to the Board for appropriate orders under c
the 2000 Act. Applying that proposition to the case at hand the
trial Court and the High Court could and indeed were legally
required to record a finding as to the guilt or otherwise of the
appellant. All that the Courts could not have done was to pass
an order of sentence, for which purpose, they ought to have D
referred the case to the Juvenile Justice Board.
19. The matter can be examined from another angle.
Section 7A (2) of the Act prescribes the procedure to be
followed when a claim of juvenility is made before any Court.
E
Section 7A (2) is as under:
"7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of
juvenility is made before any court.- (1) xxx xxx
~
(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 F
forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate
orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall
be deemed to have no effect."

,>-,' 20. A careful reading of the above would show that although G
a claim of juvenility can be raised by a person at any stage and
before any Court, upon such Court finding the person to be a
juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence, it has to
forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders
and the sentence, if any, passed shall be deemed to have
H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.
y·
A effect. There is no provision suggesting, leave alone making it
obligatory for the Court before whom the claim for juvenility is
made, to set aside the conviction of the juvenile on the ground +-
that on the date of commission of the offence he was a juvenile,
and henc~ not triable by an ordinary criminal court. Applying
B the maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterious, it would
be reasonable to hold that the law in so far as it requires a
reference to be made to the Board excludes by necessary
implication any intention on the part of the legislature requiring ,
~
the Courts to set aside the conviction recorded by the lower
c court. The Parliament, it appears, was content with setting aside
the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the juvenile and
making of a reference to the Board without specifically or by
implication requiring the court concerned to alter or set aside
the conviction. That perhaps is the reason why this Court has
D in several decisions simply set aside the sentence awarded to .~
the juvenile without interfering with the conviction recorded by
the court concerned and thereby complied with the mandate of
Section 7A(2) of the Act.
21. In Kalu@ Amit's case (supra), the plea of juvenility was
E raised before this Court for the first time as is the position in
the present case also. This Court while dealing with the options
available noticed the absence of plea on the ground of juvenility
and held that even if such a plea had been raised before the ~
High Court, the High Court would have had to record its finding
F that Kalu @ Amit was guilty, confirm his conviction, set aside
the sentence and forward the case to the Board for passing
an order under Section 15 of the Juvenile Act. The Court
observed:
'"24. The instant offence took place on 7-4-1999. As we y-.
G have already noted Kalu alias Amit was a juvenile on that
date. He was convicted by the trial court on 7-9-2000. The
Juvenile Act came into force on 1-4-2001. The appeal of
Kalu alias Amit was decided by the High Court on 11-7-
2006. Had the defence of juvenility been raised before the
H High Court and the fact that Kalu alias Amit was a juvenile
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH v. STATE OF 819
U.P. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
-, at the time of commission of the offence has come to light A
the High Court would have had to record its finding that
Kalu alias Amit was guilty, confirm his conviction, set aside
the sentence and forward the case to the Board and the
Board would have passed any appropriate order
permissible under Section 15 of the Juvenile Act (see Hari B
Ram)."
22. That procedure has been followed in several other
• 'f.
\
cases where this Court has, after holding the accused to be a
juvenile as on the date of the commission of offence, set aside
the sentence awarded to him without interfering with the order c
of conviction. (See: Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P.
1995 Supp (4) SCC 419, Bhola Bhagat & Ors. v. State of
Bihar (1997) 8 SCC 720, Upendra Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2005) 3 SCC 592, Vaneet Kumar Gupta @ Dharmindher v.
State of Punjab (2009) 17 SCC 587). D
,,.-~
23. In the totality of the above circumstances, there is no
reason why the conviction of the appellant should be interfered
.- with, simply because he is under the 2000 Act a juvenile entitled
to the benefit of being referred to the Board for an order under
Section 15 of the said Act. There is no gainsaying that even if E
the appellant had been less than sixteen years of age, on the
date of the occurrence, he would have been referred for trial to
the Juvenile Court in terms of Section 8 of the 1986 Act. The
Juvenile Court would then hold a trial and record a conviction
or acquittal depending upon the evidence adduced before it. F

.. In an ideal situation a case filed before an ordinary Criminal
Court when referred to the Board or Juvenile Court may
culminate in a conviction at the hands of the Board also. But
law does not countenance a situation where a full-fledged trial
- -,.. and even an appeal ends in a conviction of the· accused but G
the same is set aside without providing for a trial by the Board.
24. With the above observations, I agree with the Order
proposed by brother Lokur, J.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal partly allowed. H