The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2020 (Mercedes Hit and Run case) dealt with myriad Questions of Law and Interpretation of Statute quaamended Juvenile Justice Act. The point-wise summary of the above judgment is as follows: -
1. Offences in the Act are classified into three categories i.e. Petty Offences, Serious Offences and Heinous Offences.Petty offences are those where the punishment is upto 3 years, Serious Offences are those where thepunishment is of 3-7 years, and Heinous Offences are defined as where “minimum punishment” under IPC or any other law is Seven years or more.
2. The Supreme Court took above definition of “Heinous offence” into literal sense and took the view that framers of the legislation have committed the huge mistake &held that “an offence which does not provide a minimum sentence of 7 years cannot be treated to be heinous offence.” Even though this interpretation leaves out a host of offences falling within the 4th category 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.
3. The Supreme Court further held that 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, abetment to suicide of child or innocent person and many others.
4. As the Rule of Interpretation,the Court further held that the intention of the Legislature as a whole cannot be gauged from the speeches of individual members, some of whom supported the Bill and some of whom did not support the Bill. The main reliance could only be made on the objects and reasons and introduction of the bill by the Minister.
5. Treating children as adults is an exception to the scheme of the Act. It is also well-settled principle of statutory interpretation that normally an exception has to be given a restricted meaning. The Supreme Court exercised the powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution, and directed that from the date when the Act of 2015 came into force, children who have committed offences falling in the 4th category shall be dealtwith in the same manner as children who have committed ‘serious offences’ till the Parliament takes the call on the matter.
6. The Supreme Court directed that the name of the juvenile shall not be disclosed in the Judgment since it is contrary to the provisions of Section 74 of the Act of 2015 and also directed the High Court to correct the judgment and remove the name of the Child in Conflict with Law.