RESEARCH PAPER
Juvenile Justice System – for Juvenile Offenders below the Age of Sixteen ‘16’ – In Indian Perspective
 
More details
Hide details
1
Research Scholar, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun (Uttarakhand)
Publication date: 2019-03-15
 
Eurasian J Anal Chem 2018;13(6):emEJAC181188
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
It is the responsibility and duty of the court to determine the age of a person who is being involved or committed a crime, whether he is juvenile or not. The court has held that “very young children should not be sent to prison”. A juvenile under JJ Act, 1986 means “a boy who has not completed the age of sixteen years and a girl who has not completed age of eighteen years”. In the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act 2000, the difference of age of male and female child has been removed and a uniform age pattern was provided i.e 18 year of age for both. Further, Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act 2015, defined “child” and “juvenile” under sections 2(12) and (35) of the Act respectively, define as “a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years”. And as per section 2(13) of the Act 2015 “child in conflict with law” means “a juvenile who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteen years of age as on the date of commission of offence”. So it is the responsibility of the court that before sentencing a person, it is important to determine the age of such person with the help of relevant documents and then decide whether he/she is a juvenile or not. Enquiry should be held to verify the related documents pertaining to age of a juvenile after he/she produced before the court/board and during the pendency of his case. However, now the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has now finally solved the controversy by referring the child to “a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years as on date of commission of offence”. However, this issue of relevant time at which the child should be below the age of eighteen years has been raised in many judgments but has always been a debatable issue that is likely to continue in future too.
eISSN:1306-3057