Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2004

Ketankumar Gopalbhai Tandel Appellant

Versus

State of Gujarat     Respondent

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

The  question  that  falls  for  consideration  in  this  appeal  is  

whether or not the appellant, who was admittedly not a juvenile  

within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short ‘the  

1986 Act’) when offences were committed but had not completed  

18 years of age, on that date, will be governed by the Juvenile  

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short ‘the  

2000  Act’)  and  be  declared  as  a  juvenile  in  relation  to  the  

offences alleged to have been committed by him. 1

Page 2

2. The  appellant  herein  was  convicted  by  the  Additional  

Sessions Judge, Valsad (trial court) in Sessions Case No. 133 of  

1995 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the  

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and was sentenced to  

undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs1000/- and in  

default  to  undergo  Simple  Imprisonment  for  15  days  for  an  

offence  punishable  under  Section  302,  IPC  and  to  undergo  

Rigorous  Imprisonment  for  2  months  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  

Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 7  

days for an offence punishable under Section 324, IPC.  Both the  

sentences  were  ordered  to  run  concurrently.   The  accused  

preferred Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 1997 before the High Court  

of  Gujarat,  the  same  was  dismissed  vide  judgment  dated  

24.07.2003 against which this appeal has been preferred.   

3. Shri S.C. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant  

raised  a  preliminary  contention  that  the  appellant  has  to  be  

treated as a juvenile on 06.05.1995 i.e. the date of occurrence, in  

view of the provision of the 2000 Act, since his date of birth being  

01.06.1977.  On 06.05.1995, it was pointed out that the appellant  

2

Page 3

was 17 years, 11 months and 5 days, hence less than 18 years  

and is, therefore, entitled to get the benefit of the 2000 Act.   

4. Ms.  Hemantika  Wahi,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondent submitted that the appellant is governed by the 1986  

Act and under the 1986 Act all persons who were above the age  

of 16 years on the date of the commission of the offence would  

not  be  treated  as  juveniles  and since  the  appellant  was  aged  

more than 16 years on the date of occurrence hence would not  

get the benefit of juvenility.  Learned counsel submitted that the  

trial  court  as well  as the High Court  has rightly  convicted and  

sentenced the appellant and thus calls for no interference by this  

Court.   

5. We have gone through the judgment of the trial court as well  

as  that  of  the  High  Court  and  also  the  oral  and documentary  

evidences adduced in this case and we find no reason to interfere  

with the order of conviction passed by the trial court, confirmed  

by the High Court.  Learned counsel for the appellant has also not  

canvassed the correctness or otherwise of the order of conviction  

but confined his arguments, as already indicated, on the plea of  

3

Page 4

juvenility.   The  question  posed  in  this  case  is  no  longer  res  

integra. On exhaustive survey of the previous judgments on the  

point  this  Court  in  Dharambir  v.  State (NCT of Delhi)  and  

Another (2010) 5 SCC 344 held as follows:

“It is, thus, manifest from a conjoint reading of Sections  2(k), 2(l), 7-A, 20 and 49 of the Act of 2000 read with  Rules  12  and  98  of  the  Juvenile  Justice  (Care  and  Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 that all persons who  were below the age of eighteen years on the date of  commission of the offence even prior to 1-4-2001 would  be treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility is  raised  after  they  have  attained  the  age  of  eighteen  years on or before the date of the commencement of  the Act of 2000 and were undergoing sentences upon  being convicted.   In  the view we have taken,  we are  fortified by the dictum of this Court in a recent decision  in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan.”

6. This Court, when the matter came up for hearing, directed  

the Sessions Judge, Valsad (Gujarat) to find out the age of the  

appellant on the date of occurrence of the crime.  The Sessions  

Judge vide his report dated 11.04.2011 stated that the appellant  

was not juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e. 06.05.1995.  Such  

a view was taken by the Sessions Judge on the basis of the 1986  

Act.  If we apply the provisions of the 1986 Act then the appellant  

4

Page 5

was  not  a  juvenile  on  the  date  of  the  crime  but  if  we  apply  

Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7-A, 20 and 49 of the 2000 Act read with Rules  

12 and 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)  

Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’) all persons who were below the  

age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence even  

prior to 1-4-2001, would be treated as juveniles even if the claim  

of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of 18 years  

on or before the date of the commencement of the 2000 Act and  

were undergoing sentences upon being convicted.

7. So  far  as  the  present  case  is  concerned,  as  already  

indicated,  the  age  of  the  appellant  as  on  the  date  of  the  

commission  of  the  offence  i.e.  06.05.1995  was  17  years,  11  

months and 5 days and hence less  than 18 years,  and hence  

when we apply provisions of the 2000 Act, the appellant has to be  

treated as a juvenile, being less than 18 years of age on the date  

of  the  crime  and  hence  entitled  to  get  the  benefit  of  the  

provisions of the 2000 Act read with Rules.

8. We are therefore inclined to affirm the order of conviction,  

however, the sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed  

5

Page 6

by  the  High  Court  is  set  aside  and  the  matter  is  sent  to  the  

concerned Juvenile Justice Court for imposing adequate sentence.  

Appeal is allowed as above.

….…….…….……………J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

………..………………….J. (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

New Delhi, July 18, 2013

6