Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Minimum sentence in Shilpa Mittal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 9 January, 2020Matching Fragments
Deepak Gupta, J.
Leave granted.
2. “Whether an offence prescribing a maximum sentence of more than 7 years imprisonment but not providing any minimum sentence, or providing a minimum sentence of less than 7 years, can be considered to be a ‘heinous offence’ within the meaning of Section 2(33) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?” is the extremely important and interesting issue which arises in this case.
3. The factual background is that a juvenile ‘X’ is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC for short) which offence is punishable with a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life or up to 10 years and fine in the first part and imprisonment up to 10 years or fine, or both in the second part. No minimum sentence is prescribed.
4. The deceased in the motor vehicle accident was the brother of the appellant herein. The juvenile at the time of occurrence was above 16 years but below 18 years. The Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 04.06.2016 held that juvenile ‘X’ has committed a heinous offence, and, therefore should be tried as an adult. The appeal filed to the Children’s Court was also dismissed on 11.02.2019. Thereafter, the juvenile ‘X’, through his mother approached the High Court of Delhi, which vide order 01.05.2019 held that since no minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence in question, the said offence did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This order is under challenge in this appeal.
19. It would also be pertinent to refer to Section 21 of the Act of 2015 which clearly lays down that no child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without the possibility of release whether tried under the Act or under the IPC, or any other law.
20. It is contended by Mr. Siddharth Luthra, that if the definitions of offences, i.e., petty, serious and heinous are read literally then there is one category of offences which is not covered by the Act of 2015. He submits that petty offences are those offences where the punishment is up to 3 years, serious offences are those where the maximum punishment is of 7 years, and as far as heinous offences are concerned, if the definition is read literally, then these are only those offences which provide a minimum sentence of 7 years and above. He submits that this leaves out a host of offences falling within the 4 th category. The 4th category of offences are those where the minimum sentence is less than 7 years, or there is no minimum sentence prescribed but the maximum sentence is more than 7 years. He has submitted a chart of such offences. It is not necessary to set out the chart inextenso but we may highlight a few of these offences. Some of these offences relate to abetment but they also include offences such as those under Section 121A, 122 of IPC, offences relating to counterfeiting of currency, homicide not amounting to murder (as in the present case), abetment to suicide of child or innocent person and many others. He submits that it could not have been the intention of the Legislature to leave out these offences and they should have been in some category at least. The submission of Mr. Luthra is that if from the definition of ‘heinous offences’, the word ‘minimum’ is removed then all offences other than petty and serious would fall under the heading of ‘heinous offences’. He submits that if the 4 th category of offences is left out it would result in an absurdity which could not have been the intention of the Legislature. He further submits that applying the doctrine of surplusage, if the word ‘minimum’ is removed then everything will fall into place.
36. In view of the above discussion we dispose of the appeal by answering the question set out in the first part of the judgment in the negative and hold that an offence which does not provide a minimum sentence of 7 years cannot be treated to be an heinous offence. However, in view of what we have held above, the Act does not deal with the 4 th category of offences viz., offence where the maximum sentence is more than 7 years imprisonment, but no minimum sentence or minimum sentence of less than 7 years is provided, shall be treated as ‘serious offences’ within the meaning of the Act and dealt with accordingly till the Parliament takes the call on the matter.