In a pivotal judgment interpreting the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a child in conflict with law—when tried as an adult—can be sentenced to life imprisonment, but only with the possibility of release, and not imprisonment for life without remission.
Delivering the verdict in Criminal Appeal No. 1478 of 2022, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, altered the conviction of a juvenile appellant from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), reducing his sentence from 10 years to 6 years’ simple imprisonment.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a tragic domestic incident in Korba district on the night of June 11, 2019, when the juvenile appellant—then under 18—allegedly killed his own sister during a quarrel over food.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred around 10:00 PM after the family had eaten dinner and gone to sleep in the courtyard. The appellant, who returned home late, asked his sister (the deceased) to give him food. After being scolded and slapped by her, the appellant, in a fit of rage, picked up an axe and struck her twice on the head using the blunt side, leading to her death on the spot.
The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged the following day by their father, Mela Ram Kanwar (PW-1). After investigation and recovery of the murder weapon, a charge sheet was filed, and the appellant—being a minor—was initially tried before the Juvenile Justice Board. However, given the gravity of the offence, the matter was transferred to the Special Juvenile Court (FTC), Korba, which tried him as an adult.
Trial and Conviction
On August 17, 2022, the Special Juvenile Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to 10 years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹100. This sentence, however, deviated from the prescribed punishment under Section 302, which mandates either life imprisonment or death penalty.
High Court’s Analysis and Observations
Hearing the appeal, Justice Ramesh Sinha noted significant legal and factual issues:
- The trial court committed a legal error by convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC but awarding only 10 years’ simple imprisonment—a punishment not legally permissible under that section.
- The incident lacked premeditation, and the act was committed in the heat of passion during a sudden fight, triggered by a scolding and slap by the sister.
- The appellant used the blunt side of the axe and struck only twice, indicating absence of cruelty or intention to kill.
“The appellant did not have any intention to cause death… but by causing such injuries, he must have had the knowledge that such injuries were likely to cause death,” the Court observed.
The Court invoked Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which applies in cases where a homicide occurs without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, and where the offender has not acted in a cruel manner.
Juvenile Justice Act: Key Clarification
A major legal issue addressed in the judgment was the scope of sentencing under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly Sections 15, 18, 19, and 21.
The Court reaffirmed:
“No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the IPC.”
The High Court clarified that while a juvenile can be tried as an adult and awarded life imprisonment, it must always be with the possibility of release, aligning with the reformative aims of juvenile justice.
Citing Supreme Court judgments including Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi (2020) and Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh (2017), the Court emphasized that even in heinous crimes, juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced in a manner that eliminates the hope of rehabilitation.
Final Verdict
- The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside.
- The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC.
- The sentence was modified to 6 years’ simple imprisonment.
“The act of the appellant satisfies all four ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC: (i) sudden fight, (ii) no premeditation, (iii) heat of passion, and (iv) absence of cruelty,” the Court noted.
The Court directed that the appellant be informed of his right to appeal before the Supreme Court through legal aid services.
Legal Representation
- For Appellant: Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate
- For Respondent/State: Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer
