ARUNACHALAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the detenu Kumaran, son of Renganathan Gounder now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty. This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to produce the detenu, Kumaran, the brother of the petitioner, on the ground that his conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was illegal. According to the petitioner, his brother, the detenu, Kumaran, was born on 25th April, 1980 and was a juvenile at the time of the trial in S.C.No.178 of 1998 pending on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram. On the basis of a report filed before the Court showing the age of the detenu as 21 years on 18th March, 1997 and as such, on the date of occurrence, the detenu was a juvenile.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, "the JJ Act"), at any stage of the proceedings, the claim of juvenility can be raised and admittedly, on the date of commission of offence, the detenu was a juvenile. THErefore, he is entitled for the relief as per Section 7-A, though he ceased to be a juvenile on the date of commencement of the Act. If the detenu would have been tried before a Juvenile Justice Board, he could not have been inflicted with any punishment, though any reformatory order could have been passed, and therefore the punishment inflicted is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE question relating to the age of the detenu and the applicability of the one or other Act including the JJ Act fell for consideration in the earlier case of the detenu in Habeas Corpus Petition No.1803 of 2008. By judgment dated 20th March, 2009, the Court noticed the fact, as evident from the following paragraphs: