Delhi court reverses order to try teen as adult

NEW DELHI: A city court has reversed an order passed by a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) for a juvenile murder accused to be tried as an adult. Even though the court found the age of the accused between 16 and 18 years, it said the order was “wrong”.
The JJB had declared the accused an adult after considering a mandatory preliminary assessment and referred the case to the court for trial. The same reports were relied upon by the court to conclude it was wrong to have him tried as an adult.


Special Judge Balwant Rai Bansal pointed out that the law mandated the JJB to conduct a preliminary assessment with respect to the mental and physical capacity of the accused and see if he could comprehend the consequences of his alleged offences. However, the JJB relied upon the preliminary assessment — psychological and socio-economic reports — to declare him an adult offender.

Referring to the same assessment, Bansal said, “It was revealed that the appellant was in peer negative influence and, as a result, was involved with the (other) offenders. I haven’t found anything in the psychologist’s report to show aggression in his behaviour.”

The accused’s lawyers, Zishaan Iskandari and Rachit Gupta, termed the JJB order “erroneous” and submitted that the board had failed to consider that a majority of his friends (other accused) were older than him and didn’t even consider that he suffers from paralysis on one side of his body.

The lawyers also drew the court’s attention to his background, which revealed “sheer neglect” on the part of his parents. “The JJB mechanically relied upon the preliminary assessment report and misconstrued the evidence on record,” it was argued.

The prosecution, however, opposed relief to the accused referring to his criminal antecedents and involvement in heinous offences.

The case involves the alleged murder of a 25-year-old woman by the accused, who was 16 at that time, and his associates. The woman was fatally shot at on June 12, 2017. During her treatment, her brother gave a statement to police saying the accused had barged into their house and one of them had shot his sister in the chest.

The arrest of one of the accused led to the identification of the others. The juvenile reportedly encouraged his accomplice to open fire at the victim. Since his age fell in the 16-18 years bracket, preliminary assessment under Section 15 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 was mandatory.

The judge found that the accused had only “exhorted” other accused to fire at the victim and was not the prime assailant. “It is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellant (accused) was carrying any weapon and nothing has been seized from his possession,” it was observed. The court also noted that though the juvenile had a criminal record, none of the cases had culminated into a conviction.