Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 09-01-2020 in case of petitioner name Shilpa Mittal vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
| |

Supreme Court Defines Heinous Offenses Under Juvenile Justice Act

The case of Shilpa Mittal vs. State of NCT of Delhi examined a crucial issue regarding the classification of offenses under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Supreme Court had to determine whether an offense with a maximum sentence of more than seven years but no prescribed minimum sentence qualifies as a ‘heinous offense.’

Background of the Case

The case revolved around a juvenile, referred to as ‘X,’ who was charged under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing death by rash and negligent driving. Section 304 IPC prescribes a maximum punishment of life imprisonment or 10 years, but it does not specify a minimum sentence of seven years.

Under the Juvenile Justice Act, offenses are classified into three categories:

  • Petty offenses – Punishable with imprisonment of up to three years.
  • Serious offenses – Punishable with imprisonment between three to seven years.
  • Heinous offenses – Punishable with a minimum imprisonment of seven years or more.

The issue arose when the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) classified the case as a ‘heinous offense’ and ruled that the juvenile should be tried as an adult. This decision was upheld by the Children’s Court. However, the Delhi High Court overturned this ruling, stating that since Section 304 IPC does not have a prescribed minimum sentence of seven years, it does not fall under the ‘heinous offenses’ category under Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner, Shilpa Mittal, contended that:

  • The Juvenile Justice Act does not cover serious crimes where the maximum sentence is more than seven years but there is no prescribed minimum sentence.
  • Offenses like Section 304 IPC should not fall outside the scope of ‘heinous offenses’ as it creates an anomaly in dealing with serious crimes.
  • The intent of the legislation was to ensure that juveniles involved in severe crimes receive appropriate scrutiny, and excluding such offenses would defeat the purpose of the Act.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondent, the State of NCT of Delhi, argued that:

  • The Juvenile Justice Act explicitly defines ‘heinous offenses’ as those where the minimum sentence is seven years or more.
  • Since Section 304 IPC does not have a mandatory minimum punishment, it cannot be classified as a heinous offense.
  • Expanding the scope of the law beyond its explicit wording is not permissible.
  • The judiciary cannot interpret statutes in a manner that extends their scope beyond legislative intent.

Supreme Court Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the legislative intent behind the classification of offenses under the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court noted that the Act distinguishes between serious and heinous offenses based on the prescribed minimum punishment.

The Court made the following key observations:

  • Offenses with a maximum punishment exceeding seven years but no prescribed minimum sentence do not fall under the ‘heinous offense’ category.
  • The classification of offenses under the Act must be interpreted as per its plain language.
  • Creating a new category of offenses is a legislative function, not a judicial function.
  • Until Parliament addresses the anomaly, such offenses should be treated as ‘serious offenses’ rather than ‘heinous offenses.’

The Court held: ‘If the Legislature intended to include all offenses with a maximum punishment of seven years or more within the definition of heinous offenses, it would have done so explicitly. The law should be applied as written.’

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court referred to several past rulings, including:

  • State of Maharashtra vs. Jyoti Prakash – Clarifying the scope of juvenile justice classifications.
  • Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India – Emphasizing the need for legislative clarity in child protection laws.
  • Re: Exploitation of Children in Orphanages – Establishing judicial guidelines for handling juvenile cases.

Final Judgment

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:

  • The decision of the Delhi High Court was upheld.
  • Juveniles charged under Section 304 IPC will not be automatically tried as adults.
  • The Court recommended legislative intervention to address this legal gap.

This ruling clarified an important aspect of juvenile justice law, ensuring that offenses without a minimum sentence of seven years are classified appropriately. The judgment emphasized that such cases should be treated as ‘serious offenses’ rather than ‘heinous offenses’ until Parliament amends the law.


Petitioner Name: Shilpa Mittal.
Respondent Name: State of NCT of Delhi & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 09-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shilpa Mittal vs State of NCT of Delh Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Juvenile Justice
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts