Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – Claim of Juvenility – Appellant convicted for various offences under IPC and POCSO Act was awarded death sentence – Death sentence affirmed by High Court – During the pendency of the present appeals, appellant claimed juvenility – Trial Court was directed to submit report after due inquiry – Report submitted, appellant’s date of birth was found to be conclusively proved as 25.07.2002 – Date of incident being 15.12.2017, the appellant was aged 15 years 04 months and 20 days on the date of the incident – Held: No reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court regarding the date of birth of the appellant – Appellant held to be aged 15 years, 4 months and 20 days on the date of the incident – Conviction of the appellant upheld, sentence set aside – Appellant being less than 16 years on the date of commission of the offence, the maximum punishment that could be awarded is upto 3 years – However, appellant has already undergone incarceration of more than 5 years – Incarceration beyond 3 years would be illegal – Appellant to be released from judicial custody – Impugned judgement passed by High Court modified – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 363, 376(2)(i), 302, 201 – POCSO Act – s. 5(m)/6.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – s. 94 – Ossification test – Plea of the State that the appellant be subjected to an ossification test for determining his correct age as the documents filed during the inquiry before the Trial Court were not covered u/s. 94 – Held: Rejected – First preference for determination of age is the birth certificate issued by the school or a matriculation certificate – It is in the absence of the first category of documents that the birth certificate from the municipal corporation is to be considered – An ossification test comes into play when the documents are not available under the first and second columns – In the instant case, appellant’s birth certificate from the school (a government primary school) was available – It has been duly proved in the inquiry before the Trial Court, no reason to doubt its correctness – Further, an ossification test only gives a broad assessment of the age – It does not give an exact age – There is an element of margin of plus or minus 1 to 2 years – Thus, in the present case, even if ossification test is permitted, it will have no bearing on the assessment made by the Trial Court after the inquiry.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – s. 9 – Plea of Juvenility – Held: Can be raised before any Court and at any stage even after the case has been finally decided – The claim so made would be determined even if such person has seized to be a child whether on or before the commencement of 2015 Act. 

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – s. 18 – Held: Juvenile Justice Board having found a child to be in conflict with law who may have committed a petty or serious offence and where heinous offence is committed, the child should be below 16 years, can pass various orders u/clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) and also sub-section (2) – Whatever punishment is to be provided, the same cannot exceed a period of three years.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – s. 9(3) – Accused held to be a juvenile after conviction at the stage of appeal, status of the trial, conviction and sentence recorded – Held: A trial conducted and conviction recorded by the Sessions Court would not be held to be vitiated in law even though subsequently the person tried has been held to be a child – Intention of the legislature was to give benefit to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of the offence only with respect to its sentence part – It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the 2015 Act would be attracted – Any sentence in excess of what is permissible under the 2015 Act will have to be accordingly amended as per the provisions of the 2015 Act – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – s. 7A.