Juvenile Tried as Adult for Murder Cannot Be Awarded 10-Year Sentence Under Section 302 IPC; Life Imprisonment With Possibility of Release Mandatory: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Rxxxxx v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 07 May 2026

Citation: CRA-D-552-2026

Bench: Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a Child in Conflict with Law tried as an adult under the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be awarded a sentence lesser than life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 IPC, as the provision prescribes only death or life imprisonment. However, in view of Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, such life imprisonment must carry the possibility of release and cannot extend till the end of natural life.

Summary: The appellant, who was a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in FIR No. 638 dated 05.11.2022 registered at Police Station City Bhiwani under Sections 294, 302 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant under Sections 506 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC and ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.

At the stage of admission itself, the High Court noticed a fundamental defect in the sentencing portion of the impugned judgment. The Court observed that although the appellant had been tried as an adult under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Trial Court imposed a sentence of ten years under Section 302 IPC, which was contrary to the statutory mandate of Section 302 IPC.

The High Court examined Sections 19 and 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Section 19 permits trial of a child as an adult for heinous offences, whereas Section 21 prohibits sentencing a child to death or life imprisonment without the possibility of release. The Court clarified that Section 21 does not authorize courts to award any sentence lesser than what is prescribed under the penal statute. Rather, it only restricts imposition of life imprisonment extending till the end of natural life without possibility of release.

The Court observed that Section 302 IPC prescribes only two punishments — death or life imprisonment. Therefore, any sentence lesser than life imprisonment upon conviction under Section 302 IPC would be illegal and contrary to statutory mandate. The Bench emphasized that while a child tried as an adult cannot be sentenced to death or irreducible life imprisonment, the Court is still bound to impose life imprisonment with possibility of release.

The High Court relied upon several precedents including Bharatkumar Rameshchandra Barot v. State of Gujarat, wherein the Supreme Court held that any punishment less than life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC is per se illegal. Reliance was also placed upon State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandu @ Nandua and Karan @ Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh to reiterate that the Juvenile Justice Act affects only the manner and extent of sentence but does not permit courts to create a new category of punishment unknown to Section 302 IPC.

The Court further referred to decisions of the Chhattisgarh High Court and Madras High Court holding that where a child is convicted for murder after being tried as an adult, the proper sentence would be life imprisonment with possibility of release and not a fixed-term sentence such as ten years.

However, instead of itself modifying the sentence to life imprisonment, the High Court held that doing so at the appellate admission stage may prejudice the accused because he had a right to address arguments regarding the contours and conditions of release under Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh hearing on the question of sentence in accordance with law.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment awarded under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of sentence in accordance with Sections 19 and 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the statutory mandate of Section 302 IPC.