Critic Takeaways of (Shilpa Mittal v. State Of NCT of Delhi (2020))
- Juveniles committing offences with sentences over 7 years but no minimum sentence aren’t deemed heinous under Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act.
- Offences with a minimum sentence of less than 7 years don’t qualify as heinous for juveniles.
- The Supreme Court clarified the definition of “heinous offence” in the context of juvenile justice.
- Juveniles aged 16-18 committing certain serious offences may not be tried as adults.
- The judgment ensures a nuanced approach to juvenile offences, considering the nature of the sentence.
Facts of the case
In Shilpa Mittal v State of NCT of Delhi, the defendant, who was a minor at the time of the offense, did an act that is subject to punishment under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The individual involved in the event was between 16 and 18 years old at the time. The Juvenile Justice board determined that the accused had committed a serious offense and should thus be prosecuted as an adult.
Judgment of the court
In this case, the Supreme Court of India ruled that an offense that carries a sentence of more than 7 years of imprisonment but does not have a minimum sentence, or has a minimum sentence of less than 7 years, cannot be classified as a heinous offense under Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
