In a recent case, the Supreme Court has overturned the concurrent conviction of a woman in a 24-year-old murder case, acknowledging that she was a juvenile at the time of the incident. The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, allowed the woman's appeal, asserting that the maximum action that could have been taken against her was sending her to a special home.

The crucial factor in this case was the age of the appellant at the time of the offense. The court pointed out that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, was not in force when the crime occurred. Hence, the case was governed by the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, which defined a 'juvenile' as a boy who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not reached the age of eighteen years.

Upon investigation, it was found that the appellant's date of birth was September 1, 1982. On the date of the offense, June 15, 2000, she was 17 years, 9 months, and 14 days old, making her a juvenile as per the 1986 JJ Act. The court emphasized that the appellant should have been dealt with under Section 21 of the 1986 JJ Act, with the maximum action being sending her to a special home.

The issue of juvenility was raised by the appellant during the appeal, prompting the Supreme Court to direct the Sessions Court to conduct an inquiry into this aspect. The report submitted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge confirmed that the appellant was indeed a juvenile at the time of the offense.

The court considered documents such as the school leaving register from 1988, which displayed the appellant's date of birth as September 1, 1982, along with the primary certificate examination result-sheet of 1995, which corroborated the same information. Noting that the appellant was less than 18 years old on the date of the offense, the court highlighted that, according to the 1986 JJ Act, a girl of sixteen years could be sent to a special home for a period of not less than three years.

Crucially, the court cited Section 22(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, which prohibited sentencing a juvenile to undergo imprisonment. It emphasized a similar provision under Section 16 of the 2000 JJ Act. Given that the appellant had already undergone incarceration for more than eight years, the court concluded that sending her before the Juvenile Justice Board would serve no purpose.

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned judgment, underscoring the importance of adhering to juvenile justice provisions in cases where the accused was a minor at the time of the offense.

Case: Pramila vs. State of Chhattisgarh,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 64/2012.

Click to read/download order.