An accused who allegedly ran over a 32-year-old marketing executive while driving Mercedes in 2016 will be tried as a juvenile as the crime does not fall under the category of 'heinous' offence under the Juvenile Justice Act, the Supreme Court held on Thursday.
The 22-year-old accused, who was a minor at the time of the incident and just four days short of turning a major, had fatally run Siddharth Sharma in his father's Mercedes when the victim was trying to cross a road near Ludlow Castle School in north Delhi on April 4, 2016.
A bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose said that an offence which does not provide a minimum sentence of seven years cannot be treated to be an heinous offence.
The apex court said the scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that children should be protected and treating children as adults is an exception to the rule.
"It is also a well settled principle of statutory interpretation that normally an exception has to be given a restricted meaning," the bench said.
The accused was charged under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the offence is punishable with a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life or up to 10 years and fine in the first part and imprisonment up to 10 years or fine, or both in the second part.
However, no minimum sentence is prescribed.
As per Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile can be tried as an adult only in cases of 'heinous' offences where the minimum punishment is seven years in jail.
The Juvenile Justice Board in its 2016 order held that the accused has committed a heinous offence, and, therefore should be tried as an adult.
The Delhi High Court, however, ruled against it and held that since no minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence, the said offence did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Challenging the Delhi High Court order, sister of 32-year-old marketing executive had moved the apex court.
The top court said the Juvenile Justice Act does not deal with the offence where the maximum sentence is more than seven years imprisonment, but no minimum sentence or minimum sentence of less than 7 years is provided, shall be treated as "serious offences" and dealt with accordingly till the Parliament takes the call on the matter.
"In passing we may note that in the impugned judgment the name of the Child in Conflict with Law, has been disclosed. This is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 74 of the Act of 2015, and various judgments of the courts. We direct the High Court to correct the judgment and remove the name of the Child in Conflict with Law.
"We further direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary Law, Ministry of Law and Justice, Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development and the Secretary, Home, Ministry of Home Affairs, and Registrar General, Delhi HC, who shall ensure that issue raised in this judgment is addressed by Parliament as early as possible or by the Executive by issuing an Ordinance. Our directions shall continue to remain in force only till such action is taken," the bench said.
The apex court also referred to Nirbhaya incident in its judgment to highlight the issue of juvenile being tried as an adult.
"An unfortunate incident of rape and murder of a young girl (given the identity 'Nirbhaya') took place in Delhi in December 2012. One of the persons involved in the crime was a juvenile, aged 17 years. This led to a call from society to revisit the law and some sections of society felt that the word 'juvenile' had been given a very wide meaning and juveniles have been dealt with leniently," the bench said.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
