Landmark Cases under Juvenile Justice Law

NAME: PRAGADEESH VISHWANATHAN IYER

ROLL NO: 45
SUBJECT: CRIMINOLOGY
 Dr. Subramaniam Swamy and Ors. Vs. Raju through
Member, Juvenile Justice Board (AIR 2014 SC 1649)

 In this case, the Supreme Court pointed out the following points of difference between the juvenile trials and a normal criminal
trial:-
1) Juvenile justice aims at reform and rehabilitation of errant juveniles whereas criminal trial aims at finding guilt or innocence
with the aim of punishing the guilty person.
2) Juvenile Justice is child-friendly while criminal trial is adversarial.
3) FIR and charge-sheet in respect of juvenile offender is filed only in ‘serious cases’, where adult punishment exceeds 7 years,
but it is not so in criminal trials where FIR and charge-sheet is filed in each and every cognizable offence.
4) A juvenile in conflict with the law is not “arrested” but only “apprehended” and he is placed under arrest only in case of
serious offence.
5) Once apprehended, the police must immediately place the juvenile under care of welfare officer, whose duty is to produce the
juvenile before the JJB and police does not retain pre-trial custody of juveniles.
 Under no circumstances is the juvenile to be detained in jail or police lockup, whether before, after or during enquiry by the
Juvenile Justice Board.
 Grant of Bail to juveniles in conflict with the law is a rule that has to be strictly followed.
 The Juvenile Justice Board conducts a child-friendly enquiry as opposed to a adversarial trial.
 The adult criminal justice system does not regulate activities of offender once he has served sentence, but the Juvenile Justice
system provides for post-trial avenues for the juvenile to make an honest living.
 Salil Bali vs. Union of India and Anr. (AIR 2013 SC 3743)

 This case held that the Juvenile Justice Act and the ruled framed under it did not aim to try but correct the
offender. Also, juveniles had to be reformed and not punished.
 On the whole, the Juvenile Justice Act was restorative and not retributive , providing for the rehabilitation and re-
integration of children in conflict with the law into the mainstream society instead of turning them into hardened
criminals.
 Deoki Nandan Dayma vs. State of UP [(1997) 10 SCC 525]

 This ruling held that entry in school register as to date of birth is admissible in evidence to show whether an accused is
juvenile or not. Its acceptance, shall however, depend upon probative value of such entry in such school register, that is,
whether it is proper or not.
 Further, it was also clarified that in case of a conflict between date of birth in school certificate and medical certificate, the
date mentioned in the school certificate must be taken as authentic because the certificate of the Medical Officer, may be based
on mere guess.
 Rajender Chandra vs. Chandigarh Administration
(AIR 2002 SC 748)

 In this case, accused for charged for murder on February 27 1997 and was taken into custody on the same day. He demanded
that he be tried under Juvenile Justice Act as he was a juvenile. The JMFC rejected the accused’s claim of juvenility and it was
maintained by the Sessions Court.
 In a revision application, the HC accepted the petitioner’s contention and ordered him to be tried under the JJ Act. Against this,
an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court
 Taking Birth Certificate and High School certificate as evidence, the SC held that the accused was a juvenile and had to be
tried as per the JJ Act. When two different views are there in this regard, a view which is beneficial to the accused must be
adopted.
 Ajhar Ali vs. State of West Bengal
[(2013) 10 SCC 31]
 In this case, the caused was found guilty by the Magistrate u/s 354 of the IPC and was handed a punishment of 6 months RI
and fine of 1000 rupees in default of which additional sentence of 2 months would be imposed. The Sessions Judge dismissed
appeal against the sentencing. The Criminal Appeal before the High Court was also dismissed.
 The Supreme Court held that in the instant case, the appellant had committed a heinous crime against a woman by trying to
outrage her modesty and thus did not deserve the benefit of probation. It also held that claim of juvenility could be raised at
any stage of proceedings.
 Zakarius Lakra vs Union of India
(2005) 3 SCC 161
 The Supreme Court disallowed the writ petition seeking modification of the death sentence into life imprisonment under
Section 22 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986and held that proper remedy in case was to file a curative petition. The ruling
was that any errors in the consideration of facts at trial or appellate stage(claim of juvenility in this case) had to be remedied
not under a writ petition but a curative petition.