The preceding section provides for the orders that may be passed by the Juvenile Justice Board against the juvenile in conflict with law who is found guilty of an offence. But the present section prohibits the Board from making any of the following orders:—
(i) An order awarding death sentence; or
(ii) Awarding imprisonment for life; or
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(iii) An order for imprisonment in default of payment of fine; or
(iv) An order for imprisonment in default of furnishing security.
Image Source: 185.26.182.219
The main object of the provisions contained in this section is to prevent the juvenile from the contact of hardened prisoners so that they are saved from contamination. That apart, it will also prevent the juvenile from stigmatisation as a prisoner.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In Chiddu v. State of Uttaranchal, the accused juvenile committed rape one of seven years old girl by alluring her on the pretext of giving oranges. He was tried for an offence of rape under Section 376, I.P.C. The evidence clearly revealed that the accused had committed rape of the girl.
The factum of rape was fully corroborated by medical evidence and chemical examination reports. The fact that the accused was juvenile at the time of occurrence was also proved. Therefore, while maintaining conviction against the accused the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment passed on him was liable to be quashed.
The Supreme Court in Zakarius Lakra v. Union of India, disallowed the writ petition seeking modification of death sentence into that of life imprisonment under Section 22 of the old J.J. Act of 1986 and held that proper remedy in the case was to file a curative petition.
The accused (petitioner in this case was sentenced to death for the offence of murder and sought modification of death sentence into imprisonment for life on the ground that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence. Death sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court in appeal and review petition was also dismissed.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The accused petitioner had filed school certificate showing date of birth as additional evidence. He pleaded that though two certificates issued by school authorities were filed along-with the memorandum of appeal, they were not brought to the notice of Bench at the time of hearing of appeal. Rejecting the appeal the Apex Court ruled that relief sought by the accused could not be granted in writ petition and the proper remedy was to file a curative petition.
Where the Board in its discretion comes to the conclusion that keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the juvenile it would not be in the interest of the inmates of the Special Home or the juvenile himself to place him there, and no measure specified in the Act is sufficient or appropriate for the juvenile, it may order his placement in some special place or institution other than the Special Home, as it deems fit. However, in such a case, the report about the juvenile shall be submitted to the State Government for making necessary arrangements for his detention in some special place or institution with conditions as it deems necessary. But the period of such detention shall not exceed the term of sentence specified for the offence of which the juvenile is charged and found guilty.