Case Title: Shilpa Mittal V. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015's Section 2(33) does not apply to offences that have a maximum punishment of more than seven years in jail but no minimum sentence or a minimum sentence of fewer than seven years, according to the Supreme Court's observation.
The bench of Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose held that category of offences, namely offences where the maximum sentence is more than 7 years imprisonment, but no minimum sentence or a minimum sentence of fewer than 7 years is provided, shall be treated as "serious offences" within the meaning of the Act. This was done by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution.
In this case, juvenile "X," who at the time of the alleged offence was older than 16 but younger than 18, was accused of committing an offence covered by Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, a fine, or both in the first part and a maximum penalty of life in the second. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015's Section 2(33) is not applicable to the offence in issue, according to an appeal filed with the Supreme Court against a decision by the Delhi High Court that found as much. The deceased's sister had complained about this Delhi High Court ruling in an appeal to the Supreme Court. The deceased was killed in 2016 when the "juvenile" ran him over with a speeding Mercedes Benz.
According to the Act, "serious offences" are those for which the maximum sentence under any legislation is three to seven years in jail. Heinous offences are those for which the mandatory minimum sentence under any legislation is seven years or more in jail. The Board must adjudicate both minor and major offences by implementing the Code of Criminal Procedure's guidelines for trials in summons cases. The Juvenile Justice Board may conduct a preliminary evaluation with respect to the mental and physical capacity of a child to commit such an offence, the ability of the child to understand the consequences of the offence, and the circumstances in which the said offence was allegedly committed in cases where a child over the age of sixteen is alleged to have committed the heinous offence. The youngster will be tried in a Children's Court if the Board determines that a trial as an adult is necessary.
Senior Attorney Siddharth Luthra brought up the fourth category of offences before the bench, where the minimum punishment is less than 7 years or where no minimum sentence is specified but the maximum term is greater than 7 years. According to his analysis of the notion of surplusage, all offences other than minor and serious ones would be considered "heinous offences" if the term "minimum" is eliminated from the definition of "heinous offences." The bench responded to this point by saying:
“Though we are of the view that the word 'minimum' cannot be treated as surplusage, we are duty-bound to decide how the children who have committed an offence falling within the 4th category should be dealt with. We are conscious of the views expressed by us above that this Court cannot legislate. However, if we do not deal with this issue there would be no guidance to the Juvenile Justice Boards to deal with children who have committed such offences which definitely are serious, or maybe more than serious offences, even if they are not heinous offences. Since two views are possible we would prefer to take a view which is in favour of children and, in our opinion, the Legislature should take the call in this matter, but till it does so, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution, we direct that from the date when the Act of 2015 came into force, all children who have committed offences falling in the 4th category shall be dealt with in the same manner as children who have committed 'serious offences'.”
Disposing of the appeal, the bench said:
“An offence which does not provide a minimum sentence of 7 years cannot be treated to be a heinous offence. However, in view of what we have held above, the Act does not deal with the 4th category of offences viz., offences where the maximum sentence is more than 7 years imprisonment, but no minimum sentence or a minimum sentence of fewer than 7 years is provided, shall be treated as 'serious offences' within the meaning of the Act and dealt with accordingly till the Parliament takes the call on the matter.”