- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jayendra And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Jayendra, was convicted for an offence committed on 17 June 1974. During Supreme Court proceedings on his special-leave petition, the Court sought a medical report to determine his age at the time of the offence. The Chief Medical Officer of Bareilly estimated Jayendra’s age to be about 23 on 17 February 1981, implying he was approximately 16 years and 4 months old on the date of the offence. Jayendra’s own uncontradicted statement placed his age at about 15 at that time. Relying on these materials, the Court treated him as a “child” under the Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951. Special leave to appeal was granted only to Jayendra; a co-appellant’s petition had already been dismissed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Jayendra qualified as a “child” under Section 2(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951 on the date of the offence.
- If so, whether his sentence of imprisonment could stand in view of Sections 27 and 29 of the Act, which bar imprisonment for children and prescribe alternative corrective measures.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court undertook a two-step analysis:
- Age determination: It considered the jail hospital’s medical report and Jayendra’s own statement, concluding that he was under 16 when the offence was committed.
- Statutory application: Under Section 2(4) of the U.P. Children Act, a person under 16 is a “child.” Section 27 absolutely prohibits sentencing a child to imprisonment, while Section 29 allows commitment to an approved school until the child attains 18. Because Jayendra was nearly 23 by the time of judgment, commitment to an approved school was impracticable.
Consequently, although the conviction was upheld, the Court found the sentence illegal under the Act and set it aside.
Holding and Implications
Holding: Conviction affirmed; sentence quashed. The Court ordered Jayendra’s immediate release.
Implications: The ruling affects only the appellant, ensuring his release due to statutory protections for juveniles. The Court did not articulate broader jurisprudential implications.
1. Heard counsel. Special leave to appeal is granted to Appellant 1, Jayendra.
2. We had called for a report from the Doctor in charge of the jail hospital as regards the age of Appellant 1, Jayendra. The report of the Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly, Dr P.D.P Mathur, dated February 17, 1981 shows that by general appearance, physical examination and radiological findings, the appellant Jayendra was about 23 years of age on the date of the report. That would mean that on June 17, 1974 which is the date of the offence, the appellant was about 16 years and 4 months old. The estimate given by the Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly is a rough estimate by approximation but we have on the record the statement of the appellant himself which is uncontradicted that he was about 15 years of age on the date of the offence.
3. Section 2(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951 (U.P Act 1 of 1952) defines a child to mean a person under the age of 16 years. Taking into account the various circumstances on the record of the case we are of the opinion that the appellant Jayendra was a child within the meaning of this provision on the date of the offence. Section 27 of the aforesaid Act says that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, no court shall sentence a child to imprisonment for life or to any term of imprisonment. Section 29 provides, insofar as it is material, that if a child is found to have committed an offence punishable with imprisonment, the court may order him to be sent to an approved school for such period of stay as will not exceed the attainment by the child of the age of 18 years. In the normal course, we would have directed that the appellant Jayendra should be sent to an approved school but in view of the fact that he is now nearly 23 years of age, we cannot do so.
4. For these reasons, though the conviction of the appellant Jayendra has to be upheld, we quash the sentence imposed upon him and direct that he shall be released forthwith. Insofar as the other appellant is concerned, his special leave petition has already been dismissed.
Alert