RAM NARAINversusSTATE OF U.P.

                        [2015] 9 S.C.R. 200


A                           RAM NARAIN
                                 v.
                          STATE OF U.P.
            (Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7526 of 2015)
8
                                 IN
           Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1446 of2004
                        AUGUST 07, 2015
C   [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]

       Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
  2000: 57(a) - Conviction of petitioner-applicant for
  commission of offence uls. 302, !PC and imposition of life
0 imprisonment - Subsequent application by him for
  declaration of hisjuvenility on the date of incident- Juvenile
  Justice Board on the basis of school transfer certificate
  coming to conclusion that the applicant on the date of incident
  was 15 years, 11 months only and declared him juvenile
E offender- Petitioner-applicant already served sentence for
  more than 10 years and still in jail - Held: Applicant should
  get the benefit under the Act since he was juvenile on the
  date of commission of the offence - Penal Code, 1860 - s.
  302
F
      Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa 2015 (5) SCALE
      634; Ajay Kumar v State of M.P (2010) 15 SCC 83;
      Hakim v. State (2014) 13 SCC 427; Lakhan Lal v. State
      of Bihar (2011) 2 sec 251 - relied on.
G
                       Case Law Reference
    2015 (5) SCALE 634         relied on.           Para4
    (2010) 15 sec 83           relied on.           Para4
    (2014) 13 sec 427          relied on.           Para 4
H
    (2011) 2 sec 251           relied on.           Para4
                               200
              RAM NARAIN v. STATE OF U.P.                        201


     CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc.              A
Petition no. 7526 of 2015 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
1446 of2004
    From the Judgment and Order dated 07 .11.2003 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.· B
2297of1978

     Santosh Kumar Tripathi for the Petitioner.

     The Order of the Court was delivered
                                                                 c
                         ORDER

       1. This application has been filed to release the applicant
from the prison on the ground mentioned in the petition that
the petitioner-applicant has already served the sentence for D
more than 10 years and still is in jail. The petitioner-applicant
was sentenced for life imprisonment for commission of offence
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for
short). Subsequent thereto he filed an application for
declaration of his juvenility on the date of the incident, before E
the competent Court of jurisdiction, under the advice of his
counsel, being Application No.259 of 2013. The Juvenile
Justice Board vide its order dated 16.11.2013, a copy whereof
is also annexed hereto, arrived at the conclusion that the age
of the applicant on the date of the incident was 15 years 11 F
months 26 days only and thereby he was below 18 years at
the time of occurring of incident. Accordingly, by the said order
the Juvenile Justice Board declared him as a juvenile offender.
It further appears that before the Juvenile Justice Board the
applicant-petitioner produced a transfer certificate wherein his G
date of birth was recorded as December 25, 1960.

     2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-applicant
submitted that in view of the aforesaid fact the petitioner-
applicant should be given exemption under the provisions of H
202         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2015) 9 S.C.R.


A Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
   He further drew our attention to the certificate issued by the
  Senior Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Agra, certifying the
  period he is in jail. The learned counsel appearing in this
  matter further submitted that according to the prosecution the
B petitioner-applicant was charged under Section 302 of the
  Indian Penal Code, 1860 for committing the murder of one
  Nathi Lal on 21st December, 1976 at about 6.30 P.M. by
  causing him gunshot injury. The petitioner-applicant pleaded
  juvenility before the Trial Court in his statement recorded under
C Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 28th
  July, 1978, along with other grounds in his defence, but he could
  not produce the transfer certificate during prosecution being
  helpless and as a result whereof he had to suffer the sentence
  under Section 302 IPC culminating to life imprisonment. The
0
  special leave petition filed by the petitioner-applicant before
  this Court was dismissed on 20.08.2004 and the review
  petition was also dismissed by this Court by its order dated
  13.10.2004,
E          3. In these circumstances, the petitioner-applicant had to
      spend more than 10 years in prison without getting any remedy
      under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
      Protection of Children) Act, 2000. We have heard the learned
F     counsel for the petitioner-applicant. We have also considered
      the decisions cited by the learned counsel.

        4. In the case of Upendra Pradhan v. State ofOrissa,
  2015 (5) SCALE 634, wherein the appeal of the accused was
  allowed granting him the benefit of the provisions of the
G Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000,
  this Court observed:

        "The learned counsel for the appellant raises the plea of
        juvenility under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care
H       and Protection) Act, 2000. The plea can be raised before
              RAM NARAIN v. STATE OF U.P.                            203


  any Court and at any point of time. We feel that the stand         A
  taken by the counsel is correct and we will look into the
  present lis keeping in mind the juvenility of the accused
  appellant at the time of commission of the crime. As
  stated earlier, the age of the accused appellant was less
  than 18 years at the time of the incident. It has been             B
  brought to our notice that the appellant has undergone
  about 8 years in jail. The appellant falls within the definition
  of "juvenile" under Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice
  (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000. He can raise
  the plea of juvenility at any time and before any court as         c
  per the mandate of Section 7(a) and has rightly done so.
  It has been proved before us, as per the procedure given
  in the Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2007,
  and the age of the accused appellant has been
                                                                     D
  determined following the correct procedure and there is
  no doubt regarding it.

  On the question of sentencing, we believe that the
  accused appellant is to be released. In the present matter,
  in addition to the fact that he was a juvenile at the time of      E
  commission of offence, the accused appellant is entitled
  to benefit of doubt. Therefore, the conviction order
  passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law.
  Assuming without conceding, that even if the conviction
                                                                     F
  is upheld, Upendra Pradhan has undergone almost 8
  years of sentence, which is more than the maximum
  period of three years prescribed under Section 15 of the
  Juvenile Justice Act of2000. Thus, giving him the benefit
  under the Act, we strike down the decision of the High             G
  Court. This Court has time and again held in a plethora
  of judgments on the benefit of the Act of 2000 and on the
  question of sentencing."

    We have also noticed that in Ajay Kumarv State of M.P.,          H
(2010) 15 SCC 83, this Court observed as follows:
204           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A        "In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the maximum
         period for which a juvenile could be kept in a special
         home is for three years. In the instant case, we are
         informed that the appellant who is proved to be a juv~nile
         has undergone detention for a period of about
B        approximately 14 years. In that view of the matter,
         since the appellant herein was a minor on the date
         of commission of the offence and has already
         undergone more than the maximum period of
         detention as provided for under section 15 of the
c        Juvenile Justice Act, by following the provisions of
         Rule 98 of Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 read with
         Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, we allow the
         appeal with a direction that the appellant be released
         forthwith."
D
                                            (Emphasis Supplied)

          The same view was followed in Hakim v. State, (2014)
      13 SCC 427, and Lakhan Lal v. State of Bihar, (2011) 2
E     sec 251.
           5. Hence, we think that the petitioner-applicant should get
      the benefit under the said Act since he was a juvenile on the
      date of commission of the offence. In view of the above, this
F     appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order
      passed by the Trial Court as also the High Court are set aside.
      The petitioner-applicant is directed to be released forthwith.

      Devika Gujral                                     Appeal allowed.

G