DETERMINING THE AGE OF A JUVENILE : A CONTROVERSIAL APPROACH

SUBMITTED TO BUREAU OF POLICE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NEW DELHI.

SUBMITTED BY: DEBDATTA DAS NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH.

PREFACE
The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) was set up on 28th August 1970 in furtherance of the objective of the Government of India for the modernization of Police Forces. To begin with, the BPR&D had 2 divisions namely, Research Division and Development Division. Thereafter, following Divisions were added to the organization Training Division(1973), Forensic Science Services(1983), Correctional Administration(1995). In the meantime, following organizations have also been set up to take over some of the functions of BPR&D: Institute of Criminology & Forensic Science(1976) (renamed as Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Science) National Crime Records Bureau(1986) Directorate of Forensic Science(2002) Narayan National Institute of Criminology and Forensic

At present the BPR&D has four divisions as follows: Research Division Development Division Training Division Correctional Administration Division

The charter of duties (2002) of the Bureau, provides for the functions of the bureau, under the four departments of the organization , namely, Research, Statistics and Publication division, Development Division , Training Division and Correctional Administration. During my internship I worked in the Research department. The Research Division is involved in identifying the needs and problems of police services in the country and initiate, stimulate and guide research in this field in coordination with various academic and professional institutions. it also organizes seminars, symposia, workshops and congress on various subject of topical interests to the police forces in India to develop national consensus and draw actionable conclusions. One of the duties assigned to this departments as per the charter is to analysis and study crime and problems of general nature, like, inadequacy of laws, juvenile delinquency etc, affecting the police. In the department I was assigned the task of preparing a study on Determining the Age of a Juvenile: A Controversial Approach. During my work I learnt a lot on the subject as well as many aspects of research and also learnt the technique of analytical thinking.

The mission of the Bureau is to promote Excellence and best values by:

Investing in Research & Development Policies and Practices for Police and Correctional Services.

Seeking and Securing Appropriate Technology for Enhanced Performance. Investing in Human Resource Development through Training and by Imbuing Scientific Temper.

Formulating Strategic Vision to Meet Future Challenges and Assist Stakeholders.

Building Police as a Professional Service for People. Fostering Co-operation and Coordination among State & Central Police Organizations for Common Vision.

My experience at BPR&D was very encouraging and satisfying. The first hand experience of working in the research division leaves with me a very satisfying picture. The overall working of the organisation is similarly of high standards. The organization is making and shall continue to make its worthy contribution to the advantage of the nation and achieve the objectives for which it was constituted.

DEBDATTA DAS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

For being able to work as an intern in the Bureau of Police Research and Development, ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, Iam greatly indebted to my institution, National Law Institute University, Bhopal, and specially, Prof. Dr. G.S.Bajpai, who provided me with this opportunity. BPR&D provided me with a congenial and warm atmosphere to work and learn. My gratefulness to Mr. R.C. Arora, Director Research, BPR&D, who personally took interest in my work and devoted time in assigning and guiding me in my project, is immeasurable. Further I face acute scarcity of words to extend my gratitude to Dr. Tapan Chakraborty, Asst Director, Research, BPR&D, who apart from extending continuous help and support in my humble endeavour always made me feel comfortable at the organization. Iam also very thankful to Dr. Dhani Ram, for all the help that he extended to me during this period. The staff of library at BPR&D have also been very cooperative without which it would just not be possible to do this study. Lastly, I extend my humble thankfulness and gratitude to all the staff and members of the organization who never treated me like a haulting traveller but extended the courtesy of a guest and the warmth of a family member. Before concluding, it requires special mention that, this dream of mine of working in such an organisation would never be a reality unless my parents would permit me to avail this opportunity. Thus, I extend my most humble gratefulness to them. I shall always wish and pray to come back to this institution and work here with devotion and sincerity as a part of this institution.

DEBDATTA DAS

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 2. INTERNATIONAL PANAROMA 3. INDIAN LEGISLATIONS DEFINING A CHILD 4. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM OF SUPREME COURT IN DETERMINATION OF JUVENILITY WITH RESPECT TO JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT. 5. CONCLISION AND SUGGESTIONS 6. ANNEXURES

Introduction
A child of today cannot develop to be a responsible and productive member of tomorrow's society unless an environment, which is conducive to his intellectual, physical and social health is assured to him. Every nation developed or developing, links its future with the status of its children. The NATIONAL POLICY FOR CHILDREN, 19741 said that the nations Children are a supremely important asset. Their nurture and solicitude is our responsibility. Childhood holds the potential and also sets the limit to the future development of the society. Children are the greatest gift to humanity. Neglecting children means loss to the society as a whole. If children are deprived of their childhood- socially, economically, physically and mentally - the nation gets deprived of potential human resources for the social progress, economic empowerment, peace and order, social stability and good citizenry.

Today it is more than half a century since India gained independence. But still it seems that it is ignorant about one of its primary responsibilities. The bare reality which talks of the plight faced by the children in the country suggests these fundamental lacunae in the system. SlumDog Millionaire raised many controversies with regard to the reality which it portrayed. But it definitely cant be denied that such maiming, torture, cruelty is indeed rampant in our society. Tender palms which deserve a ball, a pen, few building blocks to build a dream are often provided with a bowl to seek alms, a hammer to beat iron, or may be needle to do embroidery day in and day out and all this is just done generally against the assurance of satisfying their hunger. If we study the present sociological perspective we can see that children in the society can be categorised in two groups. On one hand is the group who form a part of the higher society who in many cases in the present societal structure of Status living are deprived of being blessed with quality parenthood, who should actually possess the potential of forming the inspiration and guidance for their future. This often is the
1

Reolution No. 1-14/74 CDD

cause why such children generally in their adolescent age falter and fall prey or get involved in the vicious circle of crime or delinquency, under the deceptive search of healthy, peaceful and joyful life. On the other hand is another group, who in their strife to make their ends meet are in many cases lured or forced or are left with no alternative but to enter the lane of exploitation or dark lane of crime either knowingly or unknowingly. India is a signatory to a number of international conventions and treaties like Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1924, United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 etc dealing with the issue of child rights. So it is evident that India has not shown any sign of being lethargic in making international commitments with regard to human rights or to be more specific child rights. It is also true that if we opine that it has failed to make adequate legislations dealing with the protection of child rights then that too would simply reflect our ignorance. But then the question arises that where lies the problem and is there no effective implementation of the infrastructure and the resources that are available and crafted for the protection and assurance of the rights of the children? The role played by the judiciary is always very significant. Judiciary aims to champion the true interests of the masses and thereby uphold the ambition of the constitution of India. Judiciary is now going through a phase of revolution in the country. The responsibility vested with the judiciary has also gone up by leaps and bounds. Its response the issue of child rights is also noteworthy. Various landmark judgments given by the judiciary has indeed played a major role in guiding and attempting to protect the rights of the children, the future of tomorrow. But the primary question which the judiciary often faces while deciding various cases is related to juvenile delinquency is who is a child or a juvenile? The answer to this question can be regarded as the entry pass to decide the question whether juvenile specific laws designed specially for them can be applied in the instant case in order to ensure the rights of the juveniles and also the decorum of the society. The variations expressed in the various legislations in the country further complicate the issue. In a

nutshell we can say that the trouble with child rights or juvenile issues begin with the very definition of a child in law. The present study is a very humble attempt to focus on this issue. It has tried to get an international overview on it, glance through the existing legislations which exhibit variations on this issue and finally and most importantly it has tried to get a grip of the attitude of the Apex Court while adjudicating this issue. Juvenile Justice is an umbrella term variously used to refer to a novel jurisprudential approach to young miscreants; to the juvenile courts, the institutional linchpin of this innovation, and to a stream of affiliated institutions that carry responsibilities for control and rehabilitation of the young. For the purpose of ensuring such justice it is of primary importance that such fundamental concepts like, who is a child or a juvenile? should be clarified.

International Panaroma
In law, the term minor (also infant or infancy) is used to refer to a person who is under the age in which one legally assumes adulthood and is legally granted rights afforded to adults in society. Depending on the jurisdiction and application, this age may vary, but is usually marked at either 18, 20, or 21. Specifically, the status of minor is defined by the age of majority. In countries like Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, a minor is a person under 20 years of age. In many countries, including Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Brazil and Croatia, a minor is presently defined as a person under the age of 18. In the United States, where the age of majority is set by the individual states, minor usually refers to someone under the age of 18, but can be used in certain areas to define someone under the age of 21. The terms "infant", "child", "adolescent", "teen", "youth", "juvenile" and "young person" are also used, although some jurisdictions make a legal distinction between these terms. Minor status carries with it special restrictions, penalties and protections that do not apply to adults. The United Nations defined child as an individual below twenty-one years of age. Juvenile delinquency then deals with children, minor or youth below twenty-one years of age who break laws or fail to do what law requires. The child and Youth Welfare Code, Presidential Decree No. 603 defines youthful offender as one who is over nine years but under twenty-one years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. A child nine years of age or under at the time of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability and shall be committed to the care of his/her father or mother, or nearest relative or family friend in the discretion of the court and subject to its supervision. All member states of the United Nations except the United States and Somalia have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,1989. According to the Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. In Australia, those under ten years of age are free of all criminal responsibility under the doli incapax doctrine of UK legal tradition. Those under the age of fourteen are presumed incapable of responsibility, but this can be disputed in court. The age of full

legal responsibility is 18 except Queensland where it is 17. The age of majority in all states and territories is 18. The age of majority is 18 for most purposes including sitting on a jury, voting, standing as a candidate, marriage, hiring R-rated films or seeing them in a theatre, buying/viewing pornography and purchasing alcohol and tobacco products. A person under 18 is defined as a minor or a child. In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland a minor is a person under the age of 18; in Scotland, under the age of 16. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland is 10; and 8 in Scotland. In England and Wales, cases of minors breaking the law are often dealt with by the Youth Offending Team. If they are incarcerated, they will be sent to a youth detention center. Like Australia, the age of majority is 18 for most purposes including sitting on a jury, voting, standing as a candidate, marriage, hiring films with an 18 certificate or seeing them in a theatre, buying/viewing and modelling for pornography and purchasing alcohol, tobacco products and fireworks. In the United States as of 1995, minor is legally defined as a person under the age of 18, although, in the context of alcohol, people under the age of 21 may be referred to as "minors." However, not all minors are considered "juveniles" in terms of criminal responsibility. As is frequently the case in the United States, the laws vary widely by state. In eleven states, including Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas, a "juvenile" is legally defined as a person under seventeen. In three states, Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina, "juvenile" refers to a person under sixteen.[1] In other states a juvenile is legally defined as a person under eighteen. Under this distinction, those considered juveniles are usually tried in juvenile court, and they may be afforded other special protections. For example, in some states a parent or guardian must be present during police questioning, or their names may be kept confidential when they are accused of a crime. For many crimes (especially more violent crimes), the age at which a minor may be tried as an adult is variable below the age of 18 or (less often) below .

10

Countrywise Profile of Juvenile Delinquency

Sl no. 1. Egypt ?-18 In the justice system youths are segregated by age: 12 &under, 12-15 &15-18.Under 15 required to attend school and over 15receive vocational training. Judge aided in deliberation by 2 appointed experts- one must be a female. 2. Singapore 7-12 Islamic law set the minimum age of criminal responsibility at puberty 3. 4. 5. 6. Cuba United States India Plilipines 6-16 7-15 The upper age limit varies from state to state 18 9-18 Youth offenders, 15-18 suspended sentence. 18-20 criminally responsible but entitled to leniency. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Australia Canada England Netherlands France Israel 10-17/18 12-18 12-18 12-18 13-18 13-18 Country Maximum- Minimum Age

11

13.

Poland

13-17 Criminal responsibility based on mental and moral ability. 16-17 years old can be held criminally responsible.

14.

New Zealand

14-17 Criminal responsibility begins at the age of ten but unless mensrea can be proved till the age of 14, they are not convicted. Exception to the rule is murder or manslaughter.

15. 16. 17.

Germany Hungary China

14-17 18-20 may be transferred to juvenile 14-18 14-25 Partially responsible officially till 18. Law requires limited punishment.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Italy Japan Norway Russia Austria Sweden

14-18 14-20 15-18 14-18 14-19 15-20 Youth between the age of 15-17 years are given special consideration.

24.

Finland

15-219 They have three important age limits: 15, 18 & 21. Under 15 are not liable to be punishedunder the Penal Code. Those under 18 are recommended lighter sentences.

25.

Switzerland

15-18 7-15 are considered children, 15-18 are considered adolescent

12

and 18-25 are considered young adults and treated less severely. 26 Hong Kong 16-20

Source: Chakraborty Dr. Tapan, An International Comparison of Juvenile Justice Systems, The Indian Police Journal, LV No.3, July-Sept,2008.

13

Indian Legislations defining a Child

The first juvenile legislation passed in India was the Apprentices Act,1850. Under this Act the Magistrates were empowered to commit children between the ages of ten and eighteen years as apprentices to employers and provisions were made for made for controlling the relations between such children and the employers. Children who were found to have committed petty offences were dealt under this Act. The police Act of 1861, did not incorporate within its ambit concepts like, juvenile, delinquency, children in need of care and protection etc. The Reformatory Schools Act enacted in 1876 and later modified in 1897, was the first landmark in the treatment of young offenders. It empowered the government to establish reformatory schools, where boys could be detained till they attained eighteen years. It also provided boys above 14 years of age could be licensed out if suitable employment could be found. The Prisons Act, 1894 under Section 27 also provided that in a prison where male prisoners under the age of 182 are confined, means shall be provided for seperating them altogether from the other prisoners and for separating those of them who have arrived at the age of puberty from those who have not. The Code of Criminal Procedure enacted in 1898 provided for specialised treatment for juvenile offenders. Section 399 of the Code provided for commitment of juvenile offenders up to the age of fifteen years to reformatory Schools. The Borstal school Acts were also passed and implemented in several States to deal with the adolescent youth upto the age of 15 years (boys) and 21 years (girls). The Indian Jail Committee (1919-1920) condemned the practice of sending juvenile to jail and recommended for setting up of separate machinery for the trial and treatment of children and young offenders. Following the recommendations of the Indian Jail Committee, Madras, Bengal and Bombay also enacted Children Acts in 1920, 1922 and 1924 respectively. Andhra Pradesh implemented Madras (Andhra Area) Children Act, 1920 to deal with the children. Bombay Children Act,1948 was made applicable to Gujarat and Maharashtra. The East Punjab Children Act, 1949 was enacted in Punjab to deal with the children.

Prior to 1930, it was 21 years.

14

Several provisions in the Constitution of India impose on the State the primary responsibility of ensuring that all the needs of children are met and that their basic human rights are fully protected. Article 21 A of the Constitution of India says that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children within the ages of 6 and 14 in such manner as the State may by law determine. Article 45 of the Constitution specifies that the State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of 6. Article 51 (k) lays down a duty that parents or guardians provide opportunities for education to their child/ward between the age of 6 and 14 years. The age at which a person ceases to be a child varies under different laws in India. Under the Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986, a child is a person who has not completed 14 years of age. The Constitution of India protects children below the age of 14 from working in factories and hazardous jobs. But below 14, they can work in non-hazardous industries. An area of concern is that no minimum age for child labour has been specified. But for the purposes of criminal responsibility, the age limit is 7 and 12 under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 82 of the code says that nothing is an offence which is done by a child under 7 years of age. Section 83 further says that nothing shall be an offence which is done by a child above 7 years of age and under 12, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion. The aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code need to be read with section 6 of the same which says that throughout this code every definition of an offence, every penal provision ,every penal provision and every illustration of every such definition or penal provision shall be understood subject to the exceptions contained in the Chapter entitled, General Exceptions though those exceptions are not repeated in such definitions, penal provisions or illustrations. So the sections of the Code which contain definitions of offences, do not express that a child under 7 years of age cannot commit such offences, but the definitions are to be understood subject to the general exceptions which provides that nothing shall be an offence which is done by a child under 7 years of age. For purposes of protection against kidnapping, abduction and related offences, its 16 years for boys and 18 for girls3. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act,

Section 361 IPC, 1860

15

1872 provides that the burden of proof is upon the accused for showing the existence, if any of circumstances which bring the offence charged within any of the special as well as any of the general exceptions or proviso contained in any part of IPC or any law defining the offence. Section 82 and 83 of IPC deal with the question as to how far the infancy of the offender would be a defence to criminal charge. It was held in Queen v. Lukhini4 that non attainment of maturity in case of a child over 7 and below 12, would have apparently to be specially pleaded and proved. But subsequently it is humbly submitted that this view is not correct. Authorities make it clear that the accused need not plead and lead evidence to prove maturity of understanding in order to get benefit under section 83, IPC. It always permissible for a court to arrive at the finding whether the accused is of immature understanding even on the consideration of the circumstances of the particular case5. It is to be born in mind that a child between 7 and 12 years of age cannot be convicted of any offence unless it is expressly found that the child has attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of the act done. Section 360 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, provides that when any person under 21 years of age is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the court before which he is convicted, regard being had to his age, character, or antecedents of the offender and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a good bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding 3 years) as the court may direct and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Section 6 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, unlike section 360 of CrPC, makes it obligatory for the Court not to sentence am offender to imprisonment when he is under 21 years of age and has committed an offence punishable with imprisonment, but not with imprisonment for life. The court has to record its reasons for not dealing with the offender inder section 3 or 4 of the Act. In not taking action under section 3m or 4 of the Act, the court has to consider

4 5

(1874) 22 WRCr 28 Abdul Sattar v. Crown AIR 1949 Lah 51

16

the circumstances of the case including the nature of offence and the character of the offender. Under the Age of Majority Act 1875, every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on completion of 18 years and not before. The Indian Majority Act was enacted in order to bring uniformity in the applicability of laws to persons of different religions. Unless a particular personal law specifies otherwise, every person domiciled in India is deemed to have attained majority upon completion of 18 years of age. However, in the case of a minor for whose person or property, or both, a guardian has been appointed or declared by any court of justice before the age of 18 years, and in case of every minor the superintendence of whose property has been assumed by the Court of Wards, age of majority will be 21 years and not 18. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (HMGA), 1956, in Section 4 (a), defines a minor as a person who has not completed the age of 18 years. The age of majority for the purposes of appointment of guardians of person and property of minors, according to the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, is also completion of 18 years. Christians and Parsis also reach majority at 18. But the age of marriage in Muslim personal law is the age of puberty (around 14 years). It was held that Muslims are not exempted from this law. If the marriage of a Muslim girl is performed while she is a minor, the marriage cannot be void, but the persons who participated in the marriage are not immune from the legal punishment provided under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act. A Muslim girl can marry on attaining the age of puberty, and her marriage cannot be declared void because she is below the age of 18, according to the Child Marriage Restraint Act. The present legislation in India, following the judicial directions is, prescribes the marriageable of children to be 18 years for both boys and girls. The courts have held that evidence from a child witness, if found competent to depose facts, could be the basis for a conviction. In other words, even in the absence of an oath, the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, provided such a witness is able to understand the answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility would depend on the circumstances of each case. The only precaution the court should bear in mind whilst assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be reliable, his/her demeanour must be like 17

that of any other competent witness, and that there is no likelihood of him/her being tutored. Further, Section 118 of the Evidence Act envisages that all persons shall be competent to testify, unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to the questions, because of their young age, extreme old age, or disease -- whether of mind or any other similar cause. However, a young child can be allowed to testify if he/she has the intellectual capacity to understand questions and provide rational answers. Under The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 juvenile means a boy or a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years. Before this under the 1986 Act of Juvenile Justice, a juvenile boy meant one who had not completed the age age of 16 and a juvenile girl meant one who had not completed the age of 18. subsequently this disparity was removed with the amendment of 2000, to make the law in conformity with international standards. As a result of this, unlike prior to 2000, when children below 16 were in Juvenile Courts , today after the inception of 2000 Act children below 18 years are tried in Juvenile Courts, which are renamed as Juvenile Justice Boards. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 defines a child as any person below the age of 18, and includes an adopted stepor foster child. The following table shows the various legislations of the country defining the minimum legal age of a child.

Minimum legal age defined by some national legislations

Age (years) Boys End of compulsory education Marriage Sexual consent (Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code) Admission to employment or work, including hazardous work, part-time 14 18 Not defined Girls 14 18 16

18

and full-time work Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 Mines Act, 1952 Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 Apprentices Act, 1961 Bidi and Cigar Workers Act, 1966 Plantation Labour Act, 1951 Factories Act, 1948 Criminal responsibility 14 18 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 14 18 14 14 14 14 14 14 12

(Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, according to which, nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under 12 years, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion. It may be noted that children below the age of seven years are deemed to be incapable of criminal offence as per section 82 of the Indian Penal Code) Kidnapping(sec 360 IPC) Juvenile crime The Juvenile Justice and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Domestic Violence Act, 2005 18 18 16 18 18 18

Source: India: First Periodic Report on the CRC,Section II, Definition of the Child (http://wcd.nic.in/crcpdf/CRC-2.PDF)

19

Judicial Activism of Supreme Court in determination of juvenility with respect to Juvenile Justice Legislation
From the early 1920s, when states enacted their Children Acts, legislation provided for juvenile offenders and adult offenders to be treated differently. Juvenile legislation has always focused on reformation and rehabilitation instead of penalising the child. It is not the past misdemeanors of the child, but his future welfare that concerns the juvenile justice system. The Juvenile Justice Act 1986 was passed to bring about uniformity on the subject of juvenile justice throughout the country. The legislative intent as stated in the statement of objects and reasons was, inter alia, "to lay down a uniform legal framework for juvenile justice in the country so as to ensure that no child under any circumstances is lodged in jail or police lock-up." The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 is a legislation that conforms to the United Nations Minimum Standards for Administration of Justice to Children. It is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to juveniles in conflict with the law and children in need of care and protection, by providing for proper care, protection and treatment by catering to their development needs, and by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation through various institutions established under this enactment. the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006, has introduced many amendments in the Act which has made the Act less ambiguous, more prospectful and ambitious. They are Juvenile in conflict with law means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed his 18th year as on the date of the offence being committed. Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court, or a court is of the opinion that the accused person produced before it was a juvenile on the day the offence was committed, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of the person, and shall record a finding as to whether or not the person is a juvenile or a child, stating his age as nearly as may be

20

An important provision is that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage even after disposal of the case in terms of the provisions. If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the day the offence was committed, it shall forward the juvenile to the Board.

Despite statutes prohibiting placement of juveniles in jail or the recommendation of the Model Prison manual6, they are routinely shown as adults on arrest, kept in police lock-ups and jails, their trials are conducted before regular criminal courts, and they are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, sometimes even life imprisonment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly been called upon to examine the issue of juveniles in jail. In 1986, Sheela Barse7 petitioned the Supreme Court seeking "release of children below the age of 18 years detained in jails in different states of the country". The same year, the Supreme Court criticised the practice of keeping children in jail and ordered state governments to establish observation homes so that juvenile offenders could be placed there pending their inquiries. In that judgment, it has also attempted to give reasons as to why juveniles should not be kept in jail. "If a child is a national asset, it is the duty of the State to look after the child with a view to ensuring full development of its personality. That is why all the statutes dealing with children provide that a child shall not be kept in jail. Even apart from the statutory prescription, it is elementary that a jail is hardly a place where a juvenile should be kept. There can be no doubt that incarceration in jail would have the effect of dwarfing the development of the child, exposing him to baneful influences, coarsening his conscience and alienating him from the society. The primary issue that the Apex Court has to encounter again and again while adjudicating cases of juvenile delinquency is that whether the accused is or was a juvenile or whether he is competent to be covered under the juvenile legislation. Through judicial activism it has tried to render the society with some landmark judgments which aims to settle such confusions or disputes. The Supreme Court in Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan8 in most categorical terms wrote that as regards the general applicability of the Children Act, we are clearly of the view that the relevant date for the applicability of the Act is the date on which the offence takes place. Children Act was enacted to protect young children
6 7

Chapter XXV, Young Offenders,Formulated by BPR&D, Ministry of Hme Affairs, 2003 Sheela Barse vs. Union of India : (1986) 3 SCC 632. 8 (1982) 2 SCC 202, 210

21

from the consequences of their criminal acts on the footing that their mind at that stage could not be said to be mature for imputing mens rea as in the case of an adult. This being the intendment of the Act, a clear finding has to be recorded that the relevant date for applicability of the Act is the date on which the offence takes place. In Gopinath Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal9 , the accused for the first time before the Supreme Court claimed that he was below 18 years on the date of commission of the offence and was therefore to be treated as a child under the West Bengal Children Act, 1959. Whilst upholding the plea of Gopinath, the apex court noted the recent tendency of the plea of juvenility being raised for the first time before them and obligated the magistrate to conduct an age determination inquiry if the accused produced before him appears to be 21 years or below. The criminal manual issued by High Courts direct magistrates and judges to ascertain the age of youthful offenders when in doubt. "All Courts should, whenever a youthful offender or a party is produced before them, take steps to ascertain his age. If the age given by the Police does not appear to be correct from the appearance of the offender or party, and if the police cannot produce satisfactory evidence regarding his age, the court should consider the desirability of sending the offender or party to the medical officer for the verification of his age before proceeding with the case." It continues to say in Chapter VIII titled "Child and Young Offenders" that the best evidence of age is the entry in the births and death register, but when such evidence is not available the accused should be medically examined, and a definite finding with regard to age should be recorded by the magistrate in each case, and if the accused on inquiry is found to be a juvenile, the matter should be transferred to the juvenile court.. In Bhola Bhagat's case10, the Supreme Court, whilst entertaining a plea under the Bihar Children Act, has directed courts to conduct an age determination inquiry whenever an accused claims to be a juvenile and return a finding regarding age prior to proceeding with the criminal case. "We expect the High Courts and subordinate courts to deal with such cases with more sensitivity, as otherwise the object of the
9 10

1984 (Supp) SCC 228 Bhola Bhagat vs. State of Bihar : (1997) 8 SCC 720.

22

Acts would be frustrated and the effort of the legislature to reform the delinquent child and reclaim him as a useful member of the society would be frustrated." In Sanjay Suri & Anr. vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi & Anr11 , the Supreme Court has urged magistrates and trial judges to specify the date of the accused on a warrant, and jailors to refuse to accept warrant if the age of the prisoner is not mentioned. In Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar, a crime of murder was registered at Patna according to which one Abhishek was shot dead. On 13.9.1998 the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said offence. A day later the petitioner was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna who after recording his statement remanded him to a Juvenile home in Patna. The petitioner claimed to have been born on 18.9.1982 and therefore a juvenile, entitled to protection of The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The petitioner's claim was disputed on behalf of the prosecution. The A.C.J.M. directed an enquiry to be held under Section 32 of the Act. The petitioner was referred to examination by a Medical Board. On receipt of the report of the Medical Board and on receiving such other evidence as was adduced on behalf of the petitioner, the A.C.J.M. concluded that the petitioner was above 16 years of age on the date of the occurrence and therefore was not required to be tried by a Juvenile Court. The finding was upheld by the Sessions Court in appeal and the High Court in revision The Supreme Court in Arnit Das12 accepted that persons who were below the specified age on the date of the offence and continued to be so when presented before the court, were entitled to be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. It however, did not think it right to extend that "benefit" to persons who ceased to be so when presented before the court for the first time. The rationale for this proposition is that a "child" who had evaded arrest or had not been brought or presented before the court till the age of 50, will have to be sent to the homes housing children below 16 years of age. The Court, however, has not considered the question of dealing with a child attaining that age after proceedings were initiated under the Juvenile Justice Act. So, Arnit Das proposition13 implies that:AIR 1988 SC 414 In Defence of Arnit Das v. State of Bihar : A Rejoinder by Ved Kumari* http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/morearticles.htm
12 11

23

-It is justified in law to impose penal consequences on a person for the fact of growing up, if in the past he or she had committed an offence. -Drastically different sentences may be passed on a person who appears or is produced before the court expeditiously compared to the other who does not so appear or is not so produced, even if the offences committed by them are the same. -It is irrelevant whether the delay in production of the accused before the court was caused by himself or herself or by somebody else. -There is a duty on the suspects to present themselves before the court at the earliest opportunity to avoid more serious penal consequences. In case they fail to do so, they do so at their own peril. -This proposition does not violate either Article 14 or 20 of the Constitution. It is interesting to note that another Bench of the Supreme Court in a decision rendered after a day of the Arnit Das decision reiterated its earlier ruling of releasing the offender though an adult, because at the time of commission of the delinquent act he was a juvenile (Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar, SCC 2000.) The question which fell for decision in Arnit Dass case again fell the consideration of this court in the case of Pratap Singh14, where the decision of this court in Umesh Chandras case, which expressed a view which was contrary to that expressed in Arnit Dass case was brought to the notice of the Court, which reffered the case to the Constitution Bench to settle the divergence of views. The appellant Pratap Singh had abducted and murdered by poisoning, in conspiracy with others, the deceased on 31-12-1998. He was arrested and produced before the CJM on 22-11-1999. In response to a petition that on the date of occurrence he was a juvenile in terms of the 1986 Act, the case was transferred to the Juvenile Court. On satisfaction about the age of juvenility on the basis of school certificate the ACJM released the appellant on bail. Aggrieved by the release the informant filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. The ASJ relied upon Arnit Das v. State of Bihar and ordered a fresh enquiry on the issue of age. The appellant preferred a criminal revision before the High Court that again relied upon Arnit Das and dismissed the revision. The issue was then finally agitated before the Supreme Court.15
(2005) 3 SCC 551; SETTING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE COURSE RIGHT: A CRITIQUE OF PRATAP SINGH V. STATE OF JHARKHAND by Professor B.B. Pande* http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/2005_6_1.htm
15 14

24

The Constitution Bench formulated two points for decision, namely, whether the date of occurrence will be the reckoning date for determining the age of the alleged offender as juvenile offender or the date when he is produced in the Court/ Competent Authority whether the Act of 2000 will be applicable in a case whose proceeding is initiated under the 1986 Act and was pending when the Act of 2000 was enforced. While considering the first question, the Constitution Bench considered the decision of the three Judge Bench in Umesh Chandras case, wherein it was held that the relevant date for the applicability of the Act so far as age of the accused, is concerned, is the date of occurrence and not the date of trial. Consequently the decision in Arnit Dass case was over-ruled and the verdict of the Umesh Chandras case was declared to be the correct law. On the second point, after considering the provisions of Section 3 and Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, it was said that an offender who was being proceeded with in any Court/ Authority initiated under the 1986 Act and had not completed the age of 18 years as on 1.4.2001, shall be governed by the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The said decision in Pratap Singhs case led to the amendment of section 2(l), 39 by introduction of section 20 and the introduction of Section 7A to the Act and Rule 12 in the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007. In a nutshell it was the impetus behind the16 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Chilldren) Amendment Act, 2006. In Jameel v. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court observed that the appellant was above eighteen years of age on 01.04.2001. The 2000 Act, therefore, cannot have any application whatsoever in the instant case. In Sh. Puneet Vasudeva vs State & Anr17, decided on 6th April, 2009 there again arose some dispute as to the age of the accused Radhey Shyam. The school leaving certificate said his date of birth to 28.11.1988 which made him of less than 18 years on 05. 09. 2005 i.e. the date of commission of the crime. The date of birth as recorded in the Kutumbwar register of the village said it to be 14.09.1988 which again made him of less than 18 years on the date of the commission of the crime. However the ossification test conducted by AIIMS reported the age of the accused to be around 18 years on the date of the commission of the crime. MOOL CHAND GARG, J. in this
16 17

Case No.: Appeal (crl.) 173 of 2006 Crl.Rev.P. 610/2007

25

case opined that keeping in view the well settled position of law as laid down by the judiciary in a number of cases that the benefit in such cases hould be given to the accused, accused Radhey Shyam as on the date of commission of offence i.e. 05.09.2005 was less than 18 years of age. Radhey Shyam thus needs to be sent to Juvenile Justice Board. The Supreme Court on 5th may, 2009 has again came up with another landmark judgment. The appeal in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan18, raised certain questions which are fundamental to the understanding and implementation of the objects for which the juvenile Justicwe (care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was enacted. The judgment said that the implementation of the said Actr therefore, requires a complete change in the mindset of those who are armed with the authority of enforcing the same, without which it will be absolutely impossible to achieve the objects of the juvenile Justice Act. In this case Hari ram was arrested along with several others on 30.11. 1998 for alleged commission of offences under various provisions of IPC. According to appellants father the date of birth of the appellant was Kartik Sudi 1, Samvatt year 2039, which was equivalent to 17th October, 1982and t5he alleged offence was was said to have been committed on 30th October, 1998 on which date the appellant was supposed to have completed 16 years and 13 days. The additional Session judge by his order dated 3rd April, 2000 declared the age of the accused to be below 16 years on the date of commission of the offence and therefore directed that he tried in the juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer Rajasthan. In the Revision Petition No. 165 of 2000, filed by the State of Rajasthan,it was held that the appellant was not a juvenile and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, were not, therefore applicable to him. The High Court based on the available facts as to the date of birth and a medical examination conducted on the appellant by a medical Board also indicated that the age of the appellant at the relevant time was between 16 and 17 years also held that the accused on the date of the offence was above 16 years of age and was therefore not governed by the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. this order of the High Court was appealed against. The Apex Court held that in the instant case there was no controversy that the appellant was of sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen

18

Crl.A.No.907/2009

26

years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 came into force. In view of Section 2(k), 2(l), 7A, 20 and the amended Juvenile Justice Rules, 200719 the court held the accused to be a juvenile within the parameters of the respective law and directed the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board of Ajmer for disposal of the matter in accordance with law, within three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. The said judgment of Honble Mr. Justice Altamas kabir and Honble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph referred to an earlier view of the Constitution Bench which said that the provisions of the Juvenile Jusytice Act, 2000 have prospective effect and not retrospective effect, except in cases where though the male offender was above 16 years of age at the date of commission of the offence but was below 18 years of age as on 01.04.2001.thus, the said Act would cover earlier only where a person has not completed the age of 18 years on the date of its commencement and not otherwise. The same difficulty is faced by the judiciary while dealing the applicability of the provisions of probation for young offenders below the age of 21 years. In Ramji Missar and another v. State of Bihar20it was held that the crucial date must be that upon which the trial court had to deal with the offender. The court shall therefore have to see whether on the date the judgment was passed by the trial court, the accused was or was not of 21 years of age. Most of the courts had opined that the age of 21 is relevant at the time of the pronouncement by the trial court, because this is the time when the court finds him guilty as contemplated under section 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. But in Darshan Kumars case21 the Supreme court held otherwise. In this case reliance was shown on the birth certificate produced which showed that the appellant was below 21 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. So, we find that the Supreme Court has always generally expressed sensitivity and concern over the age of the accused keeping in mind the need of treating the juveniles differently from the adult offenders. This trend and responsible approach is expressed by the Supreme Court even before the passing of the juvenile Justice Act . The judiciary has always tried to live up to the objective of welfare of the child keeping in mind the psychological and biological elements.

19 20

Rule 12 and 98 AIR 1963 SC 1088 21 Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1972 dated 14th April 1972.

27

Conclusion and Suggestions

Though, The Times Of India on 26th January, 2005, reported that the crime rate of juveniles in India is low but the facts show that, however there has been a constant rise in the total incidence of juvenile crimes rather than any significant fall. Years 2005, 2006 and 2007 recorded this figure to be 18939, 21088 and 22865 respectively22. Low rate of crimes by juveniles i.e 1.7 in 2005, 1.9 in 2006 and 2.0 in 200723 is truly very encouraging but the constant rise in the incidence of juvenile crimes calls for special attention to be paid to such accused and convicts. Although the legislature and the judiciary have made it clear that no juvenile should be detained in jail, juvenility remains undetected, and minors continue to languish in jail thanks to erring officials. According to Shri A.P.Bhatnagar, no juvenile who comes in conflict with laws and children who need care and protection should be sent to jail or correctional homes. He recommended that the provisions of the Model Prison Manual Contained in Chapter XXV should be applied as they were drafted in conformity with the UN guidelines24. Detention is always coupled with the juvenile being, in all aspects, included within the criminal justice system. Juveniles are declined the safeguards of juvenile legislation, such as socio-legal approach of the juvenile justice board, completion of inquiry within four months, and mandatory granting of bail except in certain prescribed circumstances. Officials often under the influence of the physical appearance of the child determine their age and cause grave injustice to the juvenile and the entire criminal justice system. National Crime Records Bureau in 2006 reported that the total number of prison inmates between the age- group of 16-18 years of age is 663, where 64, 567 and 29 are convicted undertrial and detenue prisoners respectively25. So, the reality shows that such young minds are still found in Indian jails. The figures officially projected are for prisoners of minimum 16 years of age but does that mean there are no prison inmates below 16 years in India? The need for the development of responsible consciousness among the officials and the entire criminal justice mechanism to identify the juveniles to bring them within the folds of juvenile justice system has increased even more, specially after the introduction of the

22 23

Crime In India, 2007, NCRB, MHA. Supra 24 Prison Reforms, Report of Shri A.P.Bhatnagar, Advisor Prison Dept, 2007. 25 Crime In India, 2007, NCRB, MHA.

28

2006 amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act, which now defines a "juvenile in conflict with law" to mean a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed 18 years of age as on the date of commission of such offence. The present status of the legislation is such that though it is prospective in nature but it can acquire retrospective character in order to ensure benefit to the juvenile irrespective of when the accused is produced before the court, or whether their cases are pending or disposed of. Hence, persons above 16 years of age who had been treated as adults under the 1986 Act are to be identified and brought under the ambit of juvenile legislation, even if the offence was committed prior to the 2006 amendment. The judiciary has indeed through its judgments made its contribution in this regard. But effective implementation is possible only by making the system more accountable. With regard to this some of the suggestions that can be forwarded are: Strict application of the recommendation made from different forums that juvenile offenders should not be kept with adult offenders in the same prison. Court should be mandated to pass speaking order at the time of authorizing detention where a plea of juvenility has been raised so that the accused in the juvenile category is lodged in an appropriate prison. In borderline cases as to determination of age, we should err on the side of the accused claiming himself to be a juvenile by sending him to juvenile homes during the pendency of the determination of actual age. Simultaneously, the rules for administration of justice of the subordinate courts should also be modified accordingly. Court should also ensure that while any order it should assure that the benefit of legal aid is provided to the juvenile. The tendency to lodge an accused in juvenile category indiscriminately in the jail with adult prisoners should be strongly discouraged. In appropriate cases, in this regard, where wilful negligence is established, suitable compensation should also be seriously considered by the court. Separate wards for juveniles should be created in all district and central jails. Further on detection of such juvenility they can be given shelter in proper homes and such institutions, in case they are bereft of a family or any guardianship.

29

In cases where the ossification test is resorted to, the lower range of age suggested in the test may be considered. However exceptional provisions may be made for grave offences like terrorism, rape etc .

Frequent visits to the prisons should be encouraged to get the real picture within the prison walls. Prison Visiting Authorities should make specific reports of the existing prison inmates as to their age wise classification and certify the existence or non existence of the juveniles (below 18) in the jails. Follow up of the report should be made in the subsequent visit for remedial action by the authority.

The special provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act like those dealing with Juvenile Police Unit should be strictly implemented. They should undergo specially well oriented training for this special task where they are required to deal with the tenderness of psychology. Additional man power and infrastructure should be specially sanctioned for the purpose.

Like women issues are in many cases specially dealt by police stations, such infrastructure should also be created to deal with juvenile issues. The Prisoners Act, 1900 should also undergo an amendment, in conformity with the Prison Act of 1894 and the Model Prison Manual, so that provisions specifically prohibiting such juveniles from being kept in the prisons along with the adult prisoners may be incorporated.

Generally for the better development of these young delinquents, apart from providing education, reformation should also include methods like yoga, pranayam, games etc and other forms of healthy entertainment, which will help in their psychological development and relaxation.

Today the society is approaching the closing ends of welfare approach towards children and is entering the era of rights approach . Asha Bajpai writes this shift in focus from the welfare to the rights approach is significant. Rights are entitlements. They also imply obligations and goals. The rights approach is primarily concerned with issues of social justice, non-discrimination, equity and empowerment. The achievements of right based approach will depend on sincere performance of corresponding duty performed by the other stake holders in the

30

society. It has been specially introduced in the Indian Constitution under Art 51 A (k), which reads as: It shall be a duty of every citizen of India who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child, or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years. Upbringing of a child into a healthy adult with regard for social values is indisputably dependent upon the performance of this duty by the parents or guardians. They should try to groom their children in such fashion that they do not pick up any trait or habit which may bring the juvenile into conflict with law situation. The rights perspective is embodied in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989, which is a landmark in international human rights legislation. According to Article 1 of the CRC, a child means every human being below the age of 18 years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. The Article thus grants individual countries the discretion to determine by law whether childhood ceases at 12, 14, 16 or whatever age is found appropriate. Today, nearly all cultures share the view that the younger the child the more vulnerable she/he is physically and psychologically and the less able to fend for herself/himself. Age limits are a formal reflection of societys judgement about the evolution of childrens capacities and responsibilities. Almost everywhere, age limits formally regulate childrens activities. The emphasis of settling this question in the criminal justice system is of immense significance. Children are like wet clay , they can be moulded the way one tutors them or the way one nurtures them. Hence their treatment requires special attention and technique. However one needs to remember that in cases like that of Kasab, whose plea, that he is a juvenile (below 18 years of age ) and not of 21 years as claimed by the prosecution and so he should be tried under the Juvenile Justice Act, was rejected by the court , the gravity of the offence . the nature of international politics and the intricacies of advocacy should also be kept in mind. Under the garb of juvenility justice should never be sacrificed for the greater cause of humanity. The spirit depicted through the 2006 amendment show that the system is functioning in the right path and an honest, zealous and an accountable endeavour will surely bring us a much better tomorrow. 31

Sri Ramana Maharishi, looking at a child in the prayer hall, reportedly remarked: One can attain the bliss of Brahman only when the mind becomes pure and humble, like the mind of a child. Rabindranath Tagore had stated: Every child when born brings with it the hope that God is not yet disappointed with man. So, children surely requires special attention and devotion from the society as they are the TORCH BEARERS OF OUR TOMORROW. These children are the citizens of tomorrow. It is the duty of every parent and the society at large to groom them into a persona so that they develop into conscious personality, rightly capable of responsibly replacing the elder generation. This goal should naturally involve the stake holders from different quarters of the society. Therefore, multidisciplinary and well co-ordinated efforts are required to be initiated and sustained on an ongoing basis by the government departments and the NGOs representing the different stake holders of the society. The Shatpath Brahman says: Matriman, pitriman, acharyavan purusho ved It means that a young child has the advantage of having three great masters- mother, father, acharya- and is guided suitably to step into mabhood or womanhood. With the help of these masters, he or she becomes well versed in the art of life and is an asset to the society.

32

References 1.
http://infochangeindia.org/200706186472/Agenda/Child-Rights-In-India/Who-is-achild.html.

2. http://www.combatlaw.org/information.php?article_id=1115&issue_id=39 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
http://www.goforthelaw.com/articles/fromlawstu/article27.htm. http://www.indlaw.com/updates/judgments.aspx. http://wcd.nic.in/crcpdf/CRC-2.PDF. http://www.commonlii.org/in/legis/num_act/jjapoca2000439/. http://www.commonlii.org/in/legis/num_act/jjapocaa2006519/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children.

10. http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/2001v2a2.htm. 11. http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/2005_6_1.htm 12. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/316006/. 13. Chakraborty, Dr Tapan, An International Comparison of Juvenile Justice Systems,
The Indian Police Journal, LV No. 3, July-September, 2008

14. Combating Juvenile Delinquency with Reference to N.C.T of Delhi, Thesis submitted
to the University of Delhi by Dr. Dhani Ram.

15. Lal Batuk, Law of Evidence in India, 4th edn, Orient Publishing Company, 1996. 16. Singh Devinder, Probation of Offenders Act and Rules, 5th and, Law Book Company,
Allahabad, 1980.

17. Sarkar Prabhas C, Sarkar on Criminal Major Acts, 7th edn, Orient Law
Delhi, 2005.

House, New

18. Sabharwal L.R., Mother : An Epitome of Sacrifice, Tolerance and Love, Bhavans
Journal, Vol 55 No19, May 15, 2009.

33

ANNEXURE I DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF INMATES IN THE COUNTRY BY AGE GROUP AT THE END OF 2006
Sl. No. (1) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. (2) Indians Convicts Undertrials Detenues Others Total Foreigners Convicts Undertrials Detenues Others Total Total (Indians +Fpreigners)
NOTE : The percentage shares shown against Sl.No.5,10,11 (Total) are the average percentage at All India level Source: Prison Statistics India, 2006, NCRB.

Category

1618 years (3)

18-30

30-50

Above years

% share (10)

Total

share years (4) (5)

share years (6) (7)

share 50 (8) (9)

(11)

56 551 29 0 636

0.0 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.2

44058

38.0

56174

48.4

15711 13.5 29103 12.0 183 958 8.5 10.8

115999 242472 2165 8857 369493

105127 43.4 949 3054 43.8 34.5

107691 44.4 1004 4845 46.4 54.7

153188 41.5

169714 45.9

45955 12.4

8 16 0 3 27 663

1.2 0.6 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.2

313 1208 41 114 1676

46.3 43.6 37.3 51.8 44.4

305 1348 60 90 1803

45.1 48.6 54.5 40.9 47.7

50 200 9 9 272

7.4 7.2 8.2 5.9 7.2

676 2772 110 220 3778 373271

154864 41.5

171517 45.9

46227 12.4

ANNEXURE II

INCIDENCE AND RATE OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY UNDER IPC (1997 2007) SL.No. Year Incidence of Juvenile Crimes (1) 1. 2. (2) (3) Incidence of crimes (4) 1719820 1778815 1997 7909 1998 9352 % of Juvenile Crimes (5) 0.5 0.5 Rate of Juvenile (6) 0.8 1.0

total cognizable Crimes to Total Crime by

34

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

1999 8888 2000 9267 2001 16509 2002 18560 2003 17819 2004 19229 2005 18939 2006 21088 2007 22865

1764629 1771084 1769308 1780330 1716120 1832015 1822602 1878293 1989673

0.5 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1

0.9 0.9 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.0

Source: Crime in India, 2007, NCRB, MHA.

AANEXUER III

ROLE OF VARIOUS STAKE HOLDERS IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

INFLUENCED BY FAMILY PEER GROUP SCHOOLS

PREVENTIVE MEASURES MORAL TRAINING POLICE COUNSELLING AND CLASSES CHILD ORIENTED ACTIVITIES OF NGO

35

MEDIA

INNOCENTNURTURED BY ENVIRONMENT DEVIANCE GRAVE DEVIANE CROSS THE THRESH HOLD ACTIONABLE WRONG ENTRY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM POLICE JUDICIARY REFORMATION

36