The High Court of Chhattisgarh has clarified a significant legal principle under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, ruling that a child who commits a heinous offence and is found fit for trial as an adult can be sentenced to a maximum period of three years in a place of safety.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, made this pronouncement while modifying a 20-year sentence awarded to a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) convicted under Section 376(A)(B) of the Indian Penal Code. While the court upheld the conviction, it significantly altered the sentence to align with the statutory provisions of the JJ Act.
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged a judgment dated October 16, 2023, from the Juvenile Justice Board/Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, which had sentenced the juvenile to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The case began with an FIR lodged on June 17, 2018, by the mother of a minor girl (the prosecutrix), who alleged that the appellant had sexually assaulted her daughter. The victim, who was under 12 years of age, tragically passed away about six months after the incident. After a preliminary assessment, the Juvenile Justice Board ordered that the CCL be tried as an adult, leading to his conviction by the trial court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant’s counsel argued for his acquittal, contending that the evidence was contradictory and unreliable. In contrast, the State’s counsel defended the trial court’s judgment, submitting that the offence was heinous and the conviction was well-founded.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence. It affirmed the victim’s age as being below 12 years based on school records and parental testimony. The court found the evidence of the victim’s parents, the medical examination report, and the FSL report to be consistent and credible. Dr. Snehlata Tirkey (PW-06) testified that the victim’s injuries were caused by the forceful insertion of a hard, blunt object, and the FSL report confirmed the presence of sperm and semen on the victim’s vaginal slide and undergarments.
The court observed, “the evidence of the prosecution witnesses mother, father and other witnesses have supported the incident in their evidence and their statements made in the main examination have been irrefutable in their cross-examination.” Citing the presumptions under the POCSO Act, the bench concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and upheld the conviction.
Decision on Sentence
The central legal issue addressed in the appeal was the quantum of punishment permissible under the JJ Act. The High Court referred to Sections 15 and 18 of the Act to determine the appropriate sentence.
The bench concluded that the law sets a clear limit on the period of incarceration for a juvenile, irrespective of the gravity of the offence. The court held: “Under the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015, particularly Sections 15 and 18, a child who commits a heinous offence and is found fit for trial can be sentenced to a maximum period of three years in a place of safety.”
In line with this statutory mandate, the court modified the trial court’s order. Noting that the appellant had already undergone about two years of his sentence, the judgment directed that he “shall continue to remain in custody until he completes the sentence period of three years,” after which he would be eligible for release.
The appeal was dismissed, with the conviction upheld and the sentence modified as aforesaid.
