Ran
Ran
Ran
Versus
WITH
SHYAMA …………PETITIONER
Versus
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………..4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………...9
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………….....10
ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………………13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………...14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………........17
CASE…………………………………………………………………………….19
2. WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS COURT AND HIGH COURT WAS
VALID OR NOT………………………………………………………………………..21
SHYAMA…………………………………………………………………….21
ACQUITTAL……………………………………………………………………...........25
CRIMINAL ACT………………………………………………………………..26
RESPECT OF JUVENILES………………………………………………………..33
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………….35
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Del. Delhi
Edn. Edition
Guj. Gujarat
IC Indian Cases
JT Judgment Today
Mad Madras
Ori Orissa
Pat Patna
Raj Rajasthan
RCR Recent Criminal Reports
SC Supreme Court
v. Versus
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT West Bengal, (1955) AIR 65 (SC).
Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 223.
State of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, (1992) AIR 1277 (SC). P.S.R. Sadhanantham
Raghunath G. Pauhale v. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 (SC).
Jamshed Hormsuji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai AIR 2004 SC 1815.
Union of India & Ors v. Su Pandurang Tukia and Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad, AIR
1955 SC 331.
Union of India & Ors v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar, (2001) 3 SCC 414.
BOOKS
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes – A Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, Vol
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes – A Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, Vol
K I Vibhute, P.S.A Pillai’s Criminal law, Lexis Nexis, 12th Edn. 2014.
Dr. (Sir) Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 11th
Edn. 2014.
J C Smith, Smith and Hogan Criminal Law – Cases and Materials, LexisNexis
Basu’s Indian Penal Code (Law of Crimes), Vol I., Ashoka Law House, 11th Edn. 2011.
Maharukh Adenwalla, Child Protection and Juvenile Justice System, ChildLine India
2004.
S.K.A Naqvi & Sharat Tripathi, R. N. Choudhry’s Law Relating to Juvenile Justice in
STATUTES
TREATIES
LEXICONS
Catherine Soanes, Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus, 40th Edn. 2006, Oxford University
Press.
LEGAL DATABASES
Manupatra
SCC Online
Judis
Indian Kanoon
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioners have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiana under Article 136 of
the Constitution of Indiana. The Respondents reserve the right to contest the jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court. The article 136 of Constitution of Indiana reads as hereunder:
(1) Notwithstanding Anything In This Chapter, The Supreme Court May, In Its Discretion, Grant
Order In Any Cause Or Matter Passed Or Made By Any Court Or Tribunal In The Territory Of
India.
(2) Nothing In Clause (1) Shall Apply To Any Judgment, Determination, Sentence Or Order
Passed Or Made By Any Court Or Tribunal Constituted By Or Under Any Law Relating To The
Armed Forces.”
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon`ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:
BACKGROUND
1. Shyama is a poor boy who used to live in a slum in the outskirts of the city of Brada in
Niketan School up to Sixth Standard but then he dropped out of school and since then,
he has been in the employment of Mr. R. Batra. Shyama lives in the quarter provided
2. Mr. R. Batra had two children, a boy named Ravi, aged 18 years and a girl named
Vanita, aged 16 years. Shekhar Saxena, aged 17 years and 7 months is the Son of Mr.
3. Shekhar and Ravi had hatred for each other since childhood. In light of this both had a
heated quarrel. One day Shekhar was playing soccer in the park and Ravi & Vanita
were jogging at the same time. While playing soccer, the football got hit over Vanita’s
head and she sustained some minor injuries. As a result, Ravi started verbally abusing
Shekhar and this led to a heated quarrel between the two where Ravi gave a blow to
4. Both, Ravi and Vanita, used to insult Shyama in a condescending manner. Shyama
was also abused and tormented in public. One day, Shekhar saw this and talked to
Shyama.
5. Shyama took a leave for 3 days on 7th March, 2015 for going to his village. He had the
permission of Mr. Batra for the leave. On 8th March, 2015, Mrs. Batra had planned to
go to a painting exhibition with her family but due Mr. Batra’s work she decided to go
6. Mrs. Batra, with her children, reached the exhibition at 7:30 P.M. on 8th March, 2015.
Around 8:30 P.M. Vanita was taken away by four persons. Ravi sensed this and he
started searching for his sister. While searching, Ravi went to the basement and saw
four persons. Two persons were holding her sister and the other two were trying to
7. Ravi tried to save his sister, however, he was suffered one blow on his head and
several blows on his abdomen. As a result, he fell unconscious. His sister Vanita tried
to scream, but her mouth was shut and in sudden haste she was strangulated. She fell
dead and all the four persons fled away. The bodies of the deceased were discovered
around 9:30 P.M by the guard who came down to the basement to switch off the
lights.
JUDICAL PROCEEDINGS
8. Shekhar was arrested on 10th March, 2015 on the information of Ram Manohar who
saw him sneaking out the basement on the night of 8th March, 2015. On the 12th
March,
2015, Shyama was arrested along with Raju and Ranveer, who were Shekhar’s friends.
9. On 15th May, 2015, the case was admitted to the Juvenile Board (hereinafter as JB) as
all the boys were alleged to be below the age of 18 years. The case of Shekhar and
Shyama was committed to the Sessions Court as the JB found them well aware of the
circumstances and consequences of their acts. Both of them were tried u/s 302, 304,
326, 354 read with S. 34 of the Indiana Penal Code (hereinafter as IPC).
10. On 12th June, 2015 Shekhar’s case was remanded back to the JB. However, Shyama’s
submissions were rejected due to lack of evidence of age as his Birth Certificate
provided by the Municipality could not be discovered. Shyama’s assertion to carry out
a Bone Test or any other allied test for the determination of his age was also rejected
11. On 28th July, 2015, Shyama was found guilty u/s 304, 326, 354 read with S.34 of IPC,
1860. He was sentenced to imprisonment of 3 years. Shekhar was found guilty u/s
304, 326, 354 read with S. 34 of IPC, 1860 on 4th August, 2015 and he was sent to a
special home for a maximum period of 3 years by the JB. Shekhar appealed to the
Session court against the judgement and order passed by the Juvenile Board.
However, the appeal was dismissed as the case had been proved beyond reasonable
12. Both Shekhar and Shyama appealed to the High Court. Shyama filed an appeal against
the order of conviction since the Court of Session had no jurisdiction to try the case as
he was a minor. He also raised question regarding the justification of the court in
rejecting the bone test. Whereas, Shekhar filed an appeal for the quashing of the order
of conviction of the Court. Both the appeals were rejected by the High Court as both
were capax of committing the crime and both had common consensus. A contention
was raised in the cross appeal filed by prosecution against Shyama & Shekhar that
both the culprits should be convicted under S.302 instead of S.304. This was accepted
by the high court and Shyama was sentenced was life imprisonment and Shekhar was
13. On 11th January, 2016, both the accused have petitioned before this Hon’ble Apex
Court against the order of High Court and the Sessions Court. The matter is admitted
ISSUES RAISED
SEEKING ACQUITTAL.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
It is most respectfully submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court of Indiana that the
instant petition is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial
justice has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be
maintainable. In the present case no exceptional and special circumstances exist and
present case and the interference is based on pure question of fact which is entitled to be
dismissed. This court had laid down the test which says if the general principles to be
applied in determining the question of those principles the question would not be a
In the present case the appellants have been unsuccessful to show any exceptional and
special circumstances which exist. The appellants are convicted of a heinous offence and
this petition filed by the appellants is a mere vexatious attempt by them. Hence, the
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Sessions Court has
declared both, Shyama and Shekhar, as the accused in the light of the heinous acts
Sessions Court in the present case were justified and lawful. There was no irregularity of
The Sessions Court found Shyama guilty of the offences in light of the circumstantial
evidences which were found against him. According to the Medical Report, the
fingerprints of Shyama were found on Vanita’s body which led the court upon such a
decision. The second accused in the present case i.e. Shekhar was found guilty by the
Sessions Court upon the statement of Ram Manohar. He is the same person who saw
Shekhar escaping out of the basement, where the whole crime took place, at the night of
the crime.
In this situation it can be well ascertained that, not only his appearance was considered
also his acts were considered too. Hence, in the present case the accused was well aware
of the circumstances of his delinquent act and hence he was capax of committing such a
heinous offence. It’s further contended before this Hon’ble Court that the orders passes by
both the lower courts were well justified and there is no need to waste the time of the court
ACQUITTAL
It is contented before this honorable Court that the decision passed by the Honorable High
Court is a reasoned decision. Also, it is further contended that Shekhar was not charged
merely on the ground of presence alone. It is humbly submitted before this honorable
Court that, his plea of merely present at the crime scene is wrong and denied. The accused
was present at the crime scene in pursuance of a pre-planned act of taking revenge. It is
his hatred and animosity due to which he committed such a heinous offence. It is pertinent
to mention again that, Shekhar became so ambitious with the hatred against Ravi and
OF INDIANA.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the current Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2015 is very much in consonance with the
provisions of the Constitution of Indiana. All the children in the age group of 16-18 years
are treated equally and no two children in the age group of 16-18 years who commit a
heinous offence are proposed to be treated differently under the current Act. Hence, there
The Act of 2015, which has replaced the earlier Juvenile Justice Act 2000, has clearly
defined and classified offences as petty, serious and heinous, and defined differentiated
processes for each category. The present act which has been amended is very well in
consonance with the Articles of the Constitution of Indiana. The Republic of Indiana is a
The United Nations Convention on Rights of Child was ratified by the Republic of
Indiana in 1992 and the 2000 Act was consequently brought in to adhere to the standards
set by the Convention. The countries who are a signatory to the convention have certain
convention does not make any country legally bound to follow the provisions of the
convention. It is only when then country has ratified such provisions, it becomes legally
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
It is most respectfully submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court of Indiana that the
instant petition is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial
justice has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be
justice is done. Article 136 does not give a right to a party to appeal to SC rather it confers
Also in the present case, no substantial question of law is involved and interference is
substantial question of law is not sufficient unless serious injustice of the substantial
The Supreme Court, however, does not grant leave to appeal in criminal matters liberally.
It does so only when exceptional and special circumstances exist, substantial and grave
injustice has been done, and the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to
warrant a review of the decision appealed against, or there has been a departure from legal
procedure such as vitiates the whole trial, or if the findings of fact “were such as
The petitioner contends that in the present case no exceptional and special
circumstances exist and substantial justice has already been done. The appellant must
show that exceptional and special circumstances exists and that if there is no
interference, substantial and grave injustice will be done to the appellant4. Only then
the court would exercise its overriding powers under Art. 1365. Special leave will not
1
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT West Bengal, (1955) AIR 65 (SC).
2
Hon’ble Justice Bhanwar Singh, Criminal Appeals, JTRI Journal, 1995.
3
State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998.
4
Hem Raj v. The State of Ajmer, 1954 SCR 380.
5
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, LexisNexis, Nagpur, 7th Edn. 2014.
The court has emphasized in Pritam Singh v. The State 7 that, “ The only uniform
standard which in our opinion can be laid down in the circumstances in that Court
should grant special leave to appeal in those cases where special circumstances are
shown to exist”. The court shall interfere with the decision under challenge only if the
extraordinary flaws or grave injustice or other recognized grounds are made out8.
It was also observed that, it is not possible to define the limitations on the exercise of
the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Art. 136. It being an
exceptional and overriding power, naturally, has to be exercised sparingly and with
caution and only in special and extraordinary situations9. Article 136 does not give a
right to a party to appeal to the SC rather it confers a wide discretionary power on the
In the present case the appellants have been unsuccessful to show any exceptional and
special circumstances which exist. The appellants are convicted of a heinous offence
and this petition filed by the appellants is a mere vexatious attempt by them. Hence,
In plethora of cases, it has been held that except that where there has been an
6
State of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, (1992) AIR 1277 (SC).
7
AIR 1950 SC 169.
8
Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 223.
9
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal, (1955) AIR 65 (SC).
10
P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalm & Ors. , (1980) 3 SCC 141.
justice resulting in the absence of a fair trial or gross miscarriage of justice, the
SC does not permit a third review of evidence with regard to question of fact in
cases in which two courts of fact have appreciated and assessed the evidence
It is contended that this court is not bound to go into the merits and even if it
were to do so, and declare the law or point out the error, still it may not interfere
if the justice of the case on facts doesn’t require interference or if it feels that
the relief
present case and the interference is based on pure question of fact which is entitled to
be dismissed. This court had laid down the test which says if the general principles to
be applied in determining the question of those principles the question would not be a
It might involve question of law but not ‘substantial’ question of law. The present case
emphasized that, “the very conferment of the discretionary power defies any attempt at
11
Union of India v. Rajeswari & Co., (1986) AIR 1748 (SC).
12
Raghunath G. Pauhale v. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 (SC).
13
AIR 2004 SC 1815.
Court shocks the conscience. This overriding and exceptional power has been vested in
the Supreme Court to be exercised sparingly and only in the furtherance of cause of
justice in the Supreme Court in exceptional cases only when special circumstances are
shown to exist”.
2. WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS COURT AND HIGH COURT WAS
VALID OR NOT.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Sessions Court has
declared both, Shyama and Shekhar, as the accused in the light of the heinous acts
committed by them. This order of conviction of both the persons accused has also been
upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court raised the sentence of both
the persons convicted. Shyama was ordered to be sentenced for life imprisonment and
Shekhar was sentenced for a period of 10 years imprisonment14. This order of conviction
passed by the Sessions Court and the sentence increased by the High Court are well
justified.
14
Fact Sheet, ¶ 13, Line 16-18.
It is contended by the respondents that the proceedings of the Sessions Court in the
present case were justified and lawful. There was no irregularity of proceeding in the
present case. The Sessions Court found Shyama guilty of the offences in light of the
circumstantial evidences which were found against him. According to the Medical
Report, the fingerprints of Shyama were found on Vanita’s body which led the court
SHYAMA
Recently, in a case 15 the court emphasized that, “even the medical evidence
supports the commission of sexual violence on the victim and we need not
elaborate on this issue any more in the light of concurrent finding of the courts
below having been recorded against the Appellant holding in clear terms that
medical evidence beyond reasonable doubt”. In the present case, the fingerprints
of Shyama on the body of Vanita were enough to prove that the heinous offence
was committed by him. There was substantial circumstantial evidence before the
The second accused in the present case i.e. Shekhar was found guilty by the
Sessions Court upon the statement of Ram Manohar. He is the same person who
saw Shekhar escaping out of the basement, where the whole crime took place, at
15
Deepak v. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 762.
the night of the crime. It has been held in plethora of cases that wherein there is
a difference of opinion regarding the ocular and medical evidence, the ocular
Since witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice, the oral evidence has primacy
over the medical evidence. If the oral testimony of the witnesses is found
The testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of
alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence17. Thus, the position
ocular evidence can be crystallized to the effect that though the ocular testimony
Sessions Court was justified in convicting both the accused for committing such
heinous offences.
The increasing of the sentence of both the accused in the present case by the Hon’ble
High court was a justified act. The Hon’ble High Court sentenced Shyama for
imprisonment for life and Shekhar was sentenced for imprisonment for a period of ten
16
Hon’ble Justice M.L Singhal, Medical Evidence and it’s use in trial of cases, J.T.R.I. Journal, Issue – 3,
September, 1995.
17
Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484.
18
Abdul Sayeed vs State Of M.P, (2010) 10 SCC 259.
years. The Hon’ble High Court opined that the evidences revealed that both of the
accused were well aware of the circumstances of their delinquent acts. Also, the case
It is humbly contended before this honourable court the reasons given by High Court
while rejecting the petition stated that, Shyama was well aware of the circumstances
and consequences of his delinquent act and therefore he was considered capax of
committing crime.
It has been held by the courts in their judgments where if the court by the appearance
of the person can determine if the person is adult then, he will be considered adult.
The court in the case of Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand19 opined that by observing
the physical built up of the person, it can be ascertained that he is an adult. It would be
a duty of the court to accord the benefit to a juvenile, provided he is one, to give such
benefit to one who in fact is not a juvenile may cause injustice to the victim20
In this situation it can be well ascertained that, not only his appearance was
considered also his acts were considered too. Hence, in the present case the accused
was well aware of the circumstances of his delinquent act and hence he was capax of
committing such a heinous offence. It’s further contended before this Hon’ble Court
that the orders passes by both the lower courts were well justified and there is no need
to waste the time of the court in such vexatious and false contentions.
19
2009 (64) ACC. 754.
20
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006) 5 SCC 584.
ACQUITTAL
It is contented before this honorable Court that the decision passed by the Honorable High
Court is a reasoned decision. Also, it is further contended that Shekhar was not charged
merely on the ground of presence alone, following reasons were given by the honorable
Court:
Both (Shekhar and Shyama) of them were well aware of circumstances and
It is contended by the respondents that Shekhar had worked in furtherance of the common
intention to commit the offences against Ravi and Vanita. In order to attain his common
final object of taking revenge from Ravi against the long lasting animosity.
The first element is well proved. Several persons contended here are Raju, Ranveer,
21
Parichat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 535.
Shyama and Shekhar. In furtherance of the common intention, several persons must have
done several acts which together constitute an offense. In such a situation S.34 provides
It is not necessary to prove an overt act by a particular person in order to convict the
person. Criminal act done by all or one of them in furtherance of the common intention
of all would suffice to convict all the people23. It is contended that the criminal act of
murder was done by all the four accused in the furtherance of their common intention.
not present at the scene of the occurrence of the particular offense for which he has
been charged24.
CRIMINAL ACT
It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally
produces and if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs
as a result, the intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the
victim and the offence committed amounts to murder25. The intention to cause damage
or injury to either public or any person has to be there. Intention connotes a conscious
state in which mental faculties are roused into activity and summoned into action for
22
Dhansai v. State of Orissa, AIR 1969 Ori 105.
23
State of Punjab v. Mann Singh, 1983 Cr LJ 229 (SC)
24
Tukaram Ganpet Pandave v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 514.
25
(1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635.
the deliberate purpose of being directed towards a particular and specified act.
Intention has been defined as the fixed direction of the mind to a particular object, or a
termination to act in a particular manner. So, the intention of the person can be
Shekhar had animosity since childhood with Ravi. Shekhar and Shyama had shared the
hatred for Ravi and Vanita. Which is enough to show that Shekhar had intention to take
Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act in point of
time27. Therefore, there needs to be a prior plan to commit a crime. This pre-arranged
plan however need not be an elaborate one28. A mere existence of a pre-arranged plan
that the offense be conducted is enough to satisfy this element. In most circumstances,
proof of common intention has to be inferred from the act or conduct or other relevant
Moreover, the intention to kill is not required in every case, mere knowledge that
natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a
conviction under s. 302 of IPC30. The common intention must be to commit the
particular crime, though the actual crime may be conducted by anyone sharing the
common intention30. Therefore, it is contended by the prosecution that while the act of
26
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753.
27
Sharif Ahmad Alias Achhan, (1956) 2 All 188.
28
Bhopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1968 Raj 305.
29
Maqsoodan v. State of UP, 1983 Cr LJ 218 (SC). 30
30
Hardev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 179.
murder was conducted in furtherance of the common intention between the two
accused which can be inferred from their frequent discussions on what it would mean
if Ravi were to die one day, a common intention to commit the offense of murder.
The principle of Common Intention embodies the concept of Joint Liability and says
that all those persons who have committed a crime with a common intention and have
acted while keeping in mind the common intention, should be liable for the acts of
another done in common intention as if the act is done by the person alone31.
The ‘common intention’ implies a prior concert, that is, a prior meeting of minds and
participation of all the members of the group in the execution of that plan32. Common
intention also means a desire to commit a criminal act without any contemplation of
common intention34.
Direct proof of common intention is seldom therefore intention could be inferred from
circumstances. The court must draw inferences based on the premises presented by
31
Union of India & Ors v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar, (2001) 3 SCC 414.
32
Pandurang Tukia and Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 331.
33
Akanda v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Cal 339.
34
State of M.P v. Desh Raj, (2004) 13 SCC 199.
35
Idris Bhai Daud Bhai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 SCC 277.
towards existence of a pre-arranged plan on part of the accused to make the murder
look sudden but natural and thus are guilty of the aforementioned offences.
As per para 5 of the fact sheet it is mentioned that there were four persons, two of
them were tightly holding Vanita and other two were trying to outrage her modesty.
Even if, Shekhar was holding Vanita cannot be the ground to save him from the crime
It is humbly submitted before this honorable Court that, his plea of merely present at
the crime scene is wrong and denied. The accused was present at the crime scene in
pursuance of a pre-planned act of taking revenge. It is his hatred and animosity due to
Shekhar became so ambitious with the hatred against Ravi and Vanita that, he started
OF INDIANA.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the current Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2015 (hereinafter as Act.) is very much in
consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of Indiana. All the children in the age
group of 16-18 years are treated equally and no two children in the age group of 16-18
years who commit a heinous offence are proposed to be treated differently under the
current Act. Hence, there will be not differential treatment of such children on any
ground.
The new Act establishes a more robust, effective and responsive legislative framework for
children requiring care and protection, as well as children in conflict with law. Its
The Supreme Court strongly emphasized for a development in the current legislation of
relating to juvenile offender in the case of Gaurav Kumar v. The State of Haryana38. The
“The rate of crime and the nature of crime in which the juvenile are getting involved for
which the Union of India and the State Governments are compelled to file cases before
this Court to which the learned Attorney General does not disagree, have increased. A
time has come to think of an effective law to deal with the situation, we would request the
learned Attorney General to bring it to the notice of the concerned authorities so that the
relevant
37
Amendments to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, Press Information Bureau, 2015.
38
2015 (4) SCALE5 31.
provisions under the Act can be re-looked, re-scrutinize and re-visited, at least in respect
The Act of 2015, which has replaced the earlier Juvenile Justice Act 2000, has clearly
defined and classified offences as petty, serious and heinous, and defined differentiated
processes for each category. Keeping in view the increasing number of serious offences
being committed by persons in the age group of 16-18 years and recognizing the rights of
the victims as being equally important as the rights of juveniles, special provisions have
been made in the new Act to tackle heinous offences committed by individuals in this age
group36.
In recent years, there has been a spurt in criminal activities by adults, but not so by
juveniles, as the materials produced before us show37. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu
“Merely because the law causes hardships or sometimes results in adverse consequences,
it cannot be held to be ultra vires the Constitution, nor can it be struck down”.
36
Press Note of Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, Press Information Bureau, 2014.
37
Salil Bali v. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 7 SCC 705.
38
(2011) 8 SCC 737.
The present act which has been amended is very well in consonance with the Articles
of the Constitution of Indiana. Further, the Section 3 under the General Principles of
Care and Protection of Children of the Act. states that there shall be no discrimination
against a child on any ground including sex, caste, ethnicity, place of birth, disability
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. The procedures for treatment of
children who commit heinous crimes in the age group of 16 to 18 years are well laid
down in the Act. There is no arbitrariness in the current Act. with regard to
Elaborate statistics have been laid before us to show the extent of serious crimes
committed by juveniles and the increase in the rate of such crimes 40. Also, if mature
and cognitive individuals are given the armour of a Special Law allowing them to
commit offences under the Indian Penal Code without any liability, they would breed
within themselves enraged criminals with psychotic tendencies. Fake birth certificates
would throng and act as a weapon of defence against prosecution for their
wrongdoings. This is against the principles of natural justice and against the nature of
39
Section 3(x), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2015 – Principle of Equality and Non-
Discrimination.
40
Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2014) 8 SCC 390.
The ultimate aim of juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate the offender rather than to
exterminate him from the society. However, a person capable and mature to
understand his actions and its consequences, while committing the depravity of sin, if
shields himself under the false sheath of law, it does infringe jus naturale.
RESPECT OF JUVENILES
The Republic of Indiana is a signatory to various conventions which protect the rights
UNCRC) was ratified by the Republic of Indiana in 1992 and the 2000 Act was
it is pointed out that the practice of statutory exclusion which ensures that perpetrators
of certain grave offences are prosecuted as adults; ‘judicial waiver’, granting discretion
to special juvenile courts to waive jurisdiction and transfer the juvenile’s case to an
ordinary court of law and also the policy of concurrent jurisdiction of both the ordinary
and juvenile courts giving discretion to the prosecutor to initiate proceedings in the
The Act. Of 2015 maintains this aim and seeks to improve implementation and
procedural delays experienced by the 2000 Act. The UNCRC states that signatory
countries should treat every child under the age of 18 years in the same manner and not
try them as adults. However, many other countries who have also ratified the
Convention try juveniles as adults, in case of certain crimes. These countries include
the UK, France, Germany, etc. The United States is not a signatory to the UNCRC and
41
Ibid.
The provisions of various countries cannot be overlooked while dealing with such a
young persons if their crime is so serious that no other alternative is suitable, or if the
young person is a habitual offender, or if the Judge thinks the person is a risk to public
safety.
In United States of America, the majority age is 18 years, but persons older than 14
years may be tried as adults if they commit serious crimes (rape, robbery, murder etc.).
The state of New York pegs the age of juvenility at 16 years, and permits the
prosecution of persons aged between 13-16 years as adults in case of serious crimes.
below 16 years. A person between 16-18 years are charged and tried as adults under
Also, Countries like U.K. Canada and USA have departed from the obligations under
the UN Convention. The countries who are a signatory to the convention have certain
convention does not make any country legally bound to follow the provisions of the
convention. It is only when then country has ratified such provisions, it becomes
PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
2. Hold that the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court and the Hon’ble High
Court is correct.
3. Hold that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2015 is in
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.