No violation of principle of natural justice & fair play in JJB order: Court

Gurgaon: Upholding the order of the Juvenile Justice Board to try the youth accused of murdering a Class 2 student on the campus of their school in September 2017 as an adult, the district and sessions court rejected the defence’s arguments about shortcomings and contradictions in the procedure adopted by the JJB to determine the accused’s mental state as well as the conduct of the CBI’s investigating officer in the case.
In his ruling on Tuesday, a copy of which was released on Wednesday, additional sessions judge Tarun Singhal said he found no “infirmity or illegality” in the process adopted by the JJB. The order clears the decks for the sessions court to frame charges and begin the trial in the case.
Challenging the JJB order of October 17, the accused’s father, who is the petitioner, argued that it failed to consider the social investigation report, violated the principle of presumption of innocence, put undue reliance on prosecution’s case, and failed to consider the statements of students, teachers and neighbours in favour of the accused.
In his 45-page order, additional sessions judge Tarun Singal said the court found no merit in the appeal filed against the JJB order. “The court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order of October 17 passed by JJB. The detailed discussion reveals that the same has been passed within the parameters suggested by apex court in (its) judgment dated July 13 and suffers from no impropriety or illegality. Thus, the appeal lacks merits and is dismissed,” the judge said in the order.
“After hearing the parties, taking into consideration detailed forensic report, neuro psychological reports, opinion of medical board from Institute of Mental Health of PGIMS Rohtak who carried out clinical assessment of the juvenile and after personally interacting with the juvenile, JJB passed an order on October 17 holding that there was need of trial of juvenile as adult and sent the matter to sessions court,” the order went on to observe.
Defence counsel Vishal Gupta argued in court the JJB’s conclusion about the accused having sufficient mental and physical capacity to understand the consequences of the crime was based on conjecture and surmises. “JJB selectively relied on the medical report, without reading the same in totality. It picked up portions from the report without actually referring to or considering the scientific conclusions,” Gupta told the court.
“JJB on one hand, records that the juvenile had not faced any abuse or trauma at home, and his family environment was good and healthy. However, it fails to consider that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the alleged offence being committed by the juvenile just to postpone parent-teachers’ meeting,” Gupta argued.
Dismissing the arguments, the judge observed that the JJB had made every possible effort to retrospectively determine the mental and physical capacity of the juvenile. “There is no violation of the principle of natural justice and fair play as adequate opportunity is already granted to parties,” the judge said in his order. “The facts on record suggest the juvenile was well aware of the consequences of the alleged offence, and he tried to conceal the same or allegedly tried to mislead police so as to avoid his apprehension,” he added.
On the defence’s contention about over-reliance on the CBI chargesheet, the judge noted that only statements of witnesses recorded by the prosecution had been taken into consideration, in line with Juvenile Justice rules.
During arguments, the defence also questioned the conduct of DSP Ajay Kumar Bassi, CBI’s investigating officer in the case. “Bassi is manipulative and left no stone unturned to falsely implicate the juvenile in the present case. His conduct should be considered before reaching any conclusion,” the counsel argued.
This was rejected by the court as “irrelevant”. “The conduct of DSP Ajay Kumar Bassi cannot be discussed at this stage of the case. His conduct is irrelevant for the purpose of conducting preliminary assessment of the juvenile,” the judge observed.
The JJB’s October 17 ruling was the second time it ordered the accused’s trial as an adult. The first one was struck down by the Supreme Court for procedural lapses. The accused, who was apprehended in November 2017, got bail from the Supreme Court on October 20. He was 16 years and 5 months old at the time of the crime.