P&H High Court sets aside 10-year sentence awarded to juvenile convicted for murder, says Section 302 IPC leaves no room for anything less than life

The trial court in Bhiwani had sentenced the child in conflict with law to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for murder — a sentence the HC termed illegal on its face

Chandigarh, 18 May: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded by a Bhiwani sessions court to a juvenile convicted of murder, holding that Section 302 IPC prescribes only two punishments — death or life imprisonment — and a sentence of 10 years is illegal on its face. The court has remanded the matter for fresh sentencing in accordance with law.

A division bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur, pronouncing the judgment on May 7, partly allowed the appeal filed by the juvenile — referred to in court records as a Child in Conflict with Law, or CCL — against his conviction and sentence by the trial court at Bhiwani in March 2026. The FIR in the case, registered at City Police Station Bhiwani on November 5, 2022, was under Sections 294, 302 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

The trial court had tried the juvenile as an adult under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, found him guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs 5,000. A separate six-month sentence under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation was also awarded.

The High Court said it had noticed a fundamental defect in the sentencing portion of the impugned judgment and chose to address it at the threshold rather than admit the matter for full hearing, noting that leaving it unaddressed would only push the juvenile further back in the queue and serve no purpose.

On the sentence of 10 years for murder, the bench was unequivocal. Section 302 IPC, it said, provides for only two punishments — death or life imprisonment. A sentence of 10 years on a murder conviction is, on the face of it, contrary to the statute and without authority of law. The court relied on a series of Supreme Court judgments, including Bharatkumar Rameshchandra Barot v. State of Gujarat (2018) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandu @ Nandua (2022), both of which had held that any punishment less than life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC is per se illegal and beyond the court’s authority to award.

The bench also addressed the interplay between Section 302 IPC and the JJ Act. While Section 19 of the Act permits a Children’s Court to try a juvenile as an adult, Section 21 places a firm ceiling on what sentence can follow: no child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death, or to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. The court explained that this means life imprisonment awarded to a juvenile must carry the possibility of release — whether on parole, furlough, or suspension of sentence — and cannot run to the end of natural life.

The bench, however, made clear that simply substituting a life sentence in place of the 10-year term at this stage would equally cause prejudice to the juvenile. The accused has a right to be heard on sentence and to argue the protections available to him under Section 21 of the JJ Act before the appropriate court. That opportunity, the High Court said, must be afforded to him afresh by the trial court.

The court also drew on a 2023 three-judge bench ruling of the Supreme Court in Karan @ Fatiya v. State of MP, which had held that sentencing provisions of the JJ Act would apply to any juvenile found guilty of a heinous offence, and that a sentence in excess of what the Act permits must be corrected accordingly — but without letting the accused escape conviction altogether.

The court has accordingly remanded the matter to the trial court to re-hear the juvenile on the question of sentence alone and pass an order in accordance with law, leaving the conviction undisturbed. The six-month sentence under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation was not interfered with.