KARUPPAYEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Criminal Revision cases) : These two suo motu revisions relating to the detention of the Juveniles have came before us by way of reference by a learned single Judge as the connected appeals filed by the Juvenile accused after conviction, are pending before the Division Bench. These suo motu revisions are on the letters of the Director of Social Defence Madras who has raised certain doubts as to the judgments of two Sessions Courts directing juveniles to undergo imprisonment by transferring them to the jail after the period of detention in the approved schools up to their respective age namely, 20 years in the case of girl and l 8 years for the boy. So as this question was raised by the Director of Social Defence in her letters, the matters were taken up for suo motu revisions for consideration of the legal sanction of the sentences of imprisonment on the juveniles.

(2.) Of these the two juveniles, Karuppayee was found guilty of the offence under S. 302 read with 34 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C. No. 182/90 and has been con-victedto undergo life imprisonment whereas the other juvenile Kaman alias Kamatchi has been found guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C. No. 56/93 for the offence under S. 304. Part II to undergo R.I. for five years. The learned Sessions Judges giving direction in their judgments to detain these juvenile accused upto the age of 20 in the case of Karuppayee and upto the age of 18 in the case of Kaman alias Kamatchi, in the respective approved schools and thereafter to transfer them to the jail to undergo the balance period of sentence in the jail. As the Director of Social Defence felt that the juveniles cannot be directed to suffer imprisonment in the jail and that they cannot be detained beyond the respective age in the approved schools, she has written to the High Court to consider the sentences awarded to the above mentioned juveniles. Therefore, on those letters suo motu revisions are ordered and these matters have come before us.

(3.) Both the learned amicus curiae appointed in these revisions M/s. Selvakumaraswamy and K. N. Bashu argued before us that the Court cannot impose the sentence of imprisonment on the juveniles by way of punishment for the commission of the offence and they can be only detained in the approved schools or borstal school upto the age of 18 years in the case of boy or 20 in the case of girl and beyond that the Court has no powers either to detain them in the schools or direct to transfer them to undergo the imprisonment in the jail.