LAWS(CHH)-2016-11-81

SURAJ BAI Vs. PAPU @ AKHILESH SAHU

Decided On November 08, 2016
SURAJ BAI Appellant
V/S
Papu @ Akhilesh Sahu Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of order dtd. 20/10/2010 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Durg, by which the Juvenile Justice Board, after having held the Juvenile guilty of commission of offence under Ss. 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has passed an order of the nature as provided under Sec. 15 sub-sec. (1) clause (g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, 'the Act, 2000') for the period of Juvenile's stay in the Observation Home i.e. from 16/6/2009 to 20/10/2010.

(2.) The revision has been filed by the prosecutrix through her natural guardian seeking enhancement of the so called sentence awarded to the juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that looking to the nature and gravity of the allegations and offences committed by the respondent-juvenile, attending circumstances, conduct of the juvenile and that the applicant-prosecutrix was a minor and belonging to reserve category, the juvenile ought to have been kept in the Reform Home for the maximum period, provided under Sec. 15 of the Act, rather than releasing him.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-juvenile submits that the case of the revisionist is based on erroneous assumption that the juvenile is liable to be convicted and sentenced. According to him, even if the offence is found to be committed, only those orders, as provided under Sec. 15 of the Act, 2000, could be passed and the Juvenile Justice Board in the attending circumstances of the case, has passed one of the order, as provided under Sec. 15(1)(g) of the Act, 2000, which is highest degree of detention that could be ordered against a juvenile under the scheme of the Act, 2000, though it has been reduced to about 1 and 1/2 years during which the juvenile remained in the Observation Home. It is further submitted that at this stage when a juvenile is more than 23 years of age, no purposes would be served in sending a juvenile to any Special Home or in the care or supervision of a fit person, a fit institution or any other Reform Institution.