NAND KLSHOREversusSTATE OF M.P.

                   [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1489


                      NAND Kl$HORE·                            A
                              v.
                       STATE OF M.P.
             (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 63 of 2013)
                                                               B
                   DECEMBER16, 2014
     [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAAND
            ABHAY.MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
        Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
  2000-1?. 7A-Applicability of- Writ petition by a convict who C
  was convicted u/s. 302 /PC which was confirmed upto
. Supreme Court- Claiming that he was a jvvenile under 2000
  Act being below .18 years of age on the date of commission
  of offence and hence entitled to benefit under the Act- Held:
  Petitioner was a juvenile on the date of occurrence as D
  appears from the. oral and documentary evidence -
  Protection of the 2000 Act can be made available to the
 petitioner though he was convicted prior to ·coming into force
  of the Act and claim as to status as a juvenile made at a ·
  subsequent stage.                                             E
      Hariram v. State of Rajasthan 2009 (13) SCC 193;
      Ajay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 (15)
      SC 83; Abuzar Hussain @ Guizar Hossain v. State
      of West Bengal 2012 (10) SCC 489 : 2012 (9)
                                                               F
      SCR 244 ; Yakub Abdul Razak memon v. State
      of Maharashtra 2013 (13) SCC 1; Hakkim v. State
      represented through Deputy Superintendent of
      Police JT 2014 (9) SC 243..: relied on.
                     Case Law Reference                       G
     2009 (13) sec 193              relied on        Para 5
     2010 (15) SC 83                relied on        Para 6
     2012 (9 ) SCR 244              relied on        Para 6
                                                               H
                            1489
1490       · SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      (2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A           2013 (13) sec 1                  relied on       Para.6
             JT 2014 (9) SC 243               relied on       Para6
            CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
       (Criminal) No. 63 of 2013.
 B           Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
             Rishi Malhotra, Adv. for the Petitioner.
             C.D. Singh, Adv. forthe Respondent
             The following Order of the Court was passed :
 c                                  ORDER,
          1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner claiming
   the benefit of the provision under the Juvenile Justice (Care.
   and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter called, 'the
 D Act'). The petitioner claimed that he was born on 14th April,
   1980 and that the incident occurred on 18th June, 1997. He,
   therefore, claimed that since he was 17 years 2 months and 4
   days old on the date of commission of offence, though _his
   conviction under Section 302 by the trial Court was affirmed
 E by the High Court as well as by this Court by order dated 7th .
   July, .2011, by virtue of Section 7A of the Act, he was entitled
   for the benefit of the provisions contained in the Act
              2. On 22"d April, 2013, this Court i~sued notice in this writ
                        1
       petition. On 15 h July, 2013, while enlarging the petitioner on
 F     bail, a Report was called for from the Juvenile Justice Board,
       Dalia, Madhya Pradesh.
          · 3.A perusal of the said Report discloses that the District
    Education Officer and Assistant Teacher of Pandit Nehru
 G Primary School, Kasba-Banmore,. Distri.ct Morena, were
    examined apart from production of original mark sheets of
    Class 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 9th, and 11th standards. Based on the
    analysis of the above oral and documentary evidence, it was
    found thatthe petitioner was really born on 14th April, 1980. It
 H _is, therefore, reported that on the date of occurrence Le. on
              NANO KISHORE v. STATE OF M.P.                          1491


   1
18 h June, 1997 the petitioner was 17 years, 2 months and 4          A
days old.
      4. In the light of the said fact now reported it is beyond
 doubt that the petitioner was a juvenile as on the date of
·occurrence. Since, it has now turned out that the petitioner was·
 a juvenile on the date of occurrence his incarceration B
 henceforth cannot be continued.
      5. A question arose as to when conviction came to be
imposed on an accused, prior to the coming into force of the
Act of 2000, and a claim as to his status as a juvenile at the ·     c
subsequent stages as to whether the protection or the benefits
can be made available to him as a juvenile by virtue of the
coming into force of the Act of 2000. In the decision reported
in Hariram v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 13 SCC 193, it was
ultimately held:-                                                D
       "..... a juvenile who had not completed eighteen years
       on the date of commission of the offence was also
       entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000,
       as if the provisions of Section 2(k) had always been in
       existence even during the operation of the 1986 Act."         E
      6. The said judgment was subsequently followed in the
decisions reported in Ajay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2010) 15 SCC 83, Abuzar Hussain@ Guizar Hossain v. State
of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489, Jitendra Singh alias
Babboo Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2013) F
 11 sec 193 and Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of
Maharashtra 2013(13) SCC 1. One of us, Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, in the judgment reported
in JT (2014) 9 SC 243 titled Hakkim v. State represented
through Deputy Superintendent of Police had occasion to G
follow the above said principle while dealing with a convict in
Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2009( one of the three appeals).
Therefore, after the coming into force of the Act of 2000, a
juvenile who had not completed 18 years of age on the date
                                                                     H
1492          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A     of the commission of the offence was entitled to the benefits ·
       of the said Act. Following the aforesaid principle followed in
       Hakkim's case (supra), the ·same benefit is granted to the
       petitioner herein as well.
            7. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has already
 B     undergone 11 years of imprisonment, pursuant to the conviction
       and sentence imposed on him: The writ petition, therefore,
       stands allowed and the petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith
       unless his detention is warranted in any other case.
 c           8. Since the petitioner was already enlarged on bail by
                        1
       this Court on 15 h July, 2013, no further orders are necessary
       as regards his detention any more. Bail Bond and Sureties, if
       any, shall stand discharged.


       Kalpana K. Tripathy                                 Petition allowed.