The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a child in conflict with law cannot be condemned to spend the rest of life behind bars “without the possibility of release” even in a murder case.
The ruling came as a Division Bench noticed a “fundamental defect” in a 10-year sentence awarded by a trial court to a juvenile tried as an adult for murder, before remanding the matter back for a fresh hearing on the question of sentence in accordance with law.
The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur was dealing with an appeal by a child in conflict with law convicted in a 2022 Bhiwani murder case. The child was tried as an adult under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The trial court convicted the child of murder and criminal intimidation under Sections 302 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The court imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under the murder provision, while awarding six months’ rigorous imprisonment for the criminal intimidation charge.
The High Court, however, found a “fundamental defect” in the sentencing exercise itself and chose to intervene at the admission stage rather than allow the illegality to travel further through the appellate process.
Calling the 10-year sentence “problematic and illegal”, the Bench observed that Section 302 of the IPC, dealing with murder, contemplated only two punishments — death or life imprisonment. “On the face of it, this sentence is contrary to the basic statutory provision of Section 302 IPC, which provides for only two sentences, i.e., either life imprisonment or death. Nowhere is it mentioned that under Section 302 IPC, the sentence can be for 10 years,” the Bench asserted.
At the same time, the court undertook a detailed interpretation of Sections 19 and 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act governing children tried as adults for heinous offences. The Bench asserted that Section 21 prohibited sentencing a child in conflict with law to death or to life imprisonment “without the possibility of release”.
According to the court, the legislative intent behind the provision was unmistakable. “The legislative intention is very clear that if somebody is given capital punishment, then there is no possibility of release. As such, on the face of it, a death sentence cannot be given,” the Bench observed.
Explaining the second limb of Section 21, the court added life imprisonment could run for the convict’s entire natural life, such an irreversible punishment could not be imposed upon a child in conflict with law.
“It would be sufficient when the Courts are trying a child as an adult and when they hold such a child guilty for murder or other offenses, where the only sentence prescribed is imprisonment for life or death, the only sentence the Courts can award is either life or death, then in such a situation, the life imprisonment shall not run to the end of natural life,” the Bench held.
The court asserted it was obligatory for the courts concerned to specify that there would be no restriction on the possibility of such convict’s release, given the mandate of Section 21 of the JJ Act.
At the same time, the Bench refrained from itself modifying the sentence to life imprisonment, observing that such a course could prejudice the child because he had a right to argue before the trial court on the contours and implications of Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the “possibility of release” safeguard available to him.
Setting aside only the sentencing portion under Section 302 IPC, the Bench remanded the matter to the trial court to hear the child afresh on the question of sentence.
Why is the judgment important?
The High Court has clarified an important sentencing confusion arising in cases where juveniles are tried as adults for murder. Trial courts appear to have been treating life imprisonment as necessarily meaning incarceration till the end of natural life and, therefore, legally impermissible under Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act. In an apparent attempt to avoid such a consequence, the trial court in the present case awarded a fixed 10-year sentence.
The High Court has now clarified that Section 21 does not prohibit life imprisonment for a child in conflict with law; it only prohibits life imprisonment “without the possibility of release”. As such, a juvenile tried as an adult for murder can still be sentenced to life imprisonment, but the sentence must preserve the possibility of release, reform and rehabilitation.
