At, Supreme Court of India
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
For the Petitioner: Mukul Rohatgi, A.G., Tushar Mehta, ASG, Meenakshi Grover, Devanshi Singh, B.V. Balaram Das, AOR. For the Respondent: Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Advocate, Mangaljit Mukherjee, Debarpita Basu Mukherjee, Biswajit Manna, Sarla Chandra, Advocates.
1. This Court on 27th October, 2014, had passed the following order:
"Mr. Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, apart from submitting that the finding recorded on that score is absolutely unsustainable, also submitted that the entire scheme of juvenility is e
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
gaging the attention of the Central Government. While dealing with the issue, two suggestions were given to the learned Attorney General, namely, whether there is any kind of consideration as regards the reduction of age, and whether the juvenility will depend upon the nature of offence committed. To elaborate, whether the attention of the Government will be drawn to the prevailing atmosphere that most of the juveniles are engaged in horrendous and heinous crimes like rape, murder and drug-peddling, etc."2. It is submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General appearing for Union of India, along with Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General that the concern expressed by this Court is still engaging the attention of the competent authority of the State. It is further submitted by Mr. Rohatgi that he realizes the concern of the 'Nation' at the rate the heinous crimes are committed by the juveniles, who are called juvenile under the present Act, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Elaborating the concern, the learned Attorney General would state that in the instant case the respondent, who claims to be a juvenile, has been alleged accused of offence wherein a gathering in a village was attacked by lethal weapons by other accused persons along with the respondent which has resulted in the death of nine persons and injuries have been suffered by several other persons.3. Mr. Rohatgi and Mr. Mehta would submit that the High Court has found him to be a juvenile as he was seventeen years and six months on the date of alleged occurrence, though they seriously would contend that it is factually incorrect. That is the controversy to be gone into.4. Mr. Rohatgi and Mr. Mehta would further propone that this kind of involvement of the juveniles under the present Act are increasing and it has actually become a matter of grave concern. We are inclined to think that the concern expressed by learned Attorney General is absolutely correct and we are of the convinced opinion that he will put it across to the competent authorities so that care is taken to the extent that the nature of the offence has some nexus with the age in question, for the cry of the collected is to live in a peaceful society that respects life, dignity and others liberty.5. Let this matter be listed in the second week of January, 2015, for further hearing.
"2014 (13) Scale 137" == "2014 (15) SCC 659" == "2015 (6) RCR(Criminal) 150,"