Name: Vaishnavi Kumari R. Singh, Rajnish Kumar
Country: India

Year: 2021
Volume: Volume-12, Issue-2 (July-December)
Page Number: 17-23

ABSTRACT:
As per the fact of the case, at the commission of crime in 1998, the Juvenile Justice Act 1986 was in force, which stated that any person below the age of 16 was considered a juvenile. The age of Amrat Ram, the second son of Devilal, was 16 years, 11 months and 26 days at the time of commission of the offence. And the accused therefore, clearly wasn’t a juvenile within the meaning of Juvenile Justice Act 1986. But this age was raised to 18 in terms of provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Supreme Court had directed the sessions court to investigate this issue of juvenility and submit the report.
In adherence to the Sections 34, 302 and 342 of Indian Penal Code and Juvenile Justice Act 1986 and Section 20 of Juvenile Justice Act 2000, There is need to understand ratio decidendi and arguments of the Supreme Court, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Trial Court for the purpose of this case. Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act 200