Whether a child understands the consequences of an offence he has committed cannot be assessed without considering the "manner" in which it was done, a city court has said.
The court made the observation while upholding a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) order to try a 16-year-old boy, accused of shooting dead a couple in 2016, as an adult.
The JJB had on March 27 this year held that there was a need for trial of the juvenile appellant as an adult and sent him to a children's court for trial in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Also Read
In the appeal against the JJB's order, the juvenile through his counsel contended that as per Juvenile Justice Model Rules 2016, while making preliminary assessment under the Juvenile Justice Act, a child shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise, but the Board had completely ignored this principle.
It claimed that the facts and circumstances of the case do not meet the parameters laid down in the JJ Act and the Board fell in error by holding that the boy deserved to be tried as an adult.
The court, however, said "no doubt, the presumption of innocence of the child has to be maintained but for assessing his ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, the allegations as per the case of prosecution are required to be looked into.
"The ability of the child to understand the consequences of the offence cannot be assessed dehors the manner in which the alleged offence was committed," Additional Sessions Judge Sanjay Garg said.
The court also said the previous involvement of the child, if any, also renders assistance in reflecting his mental ability and circumstances.
According to the prosecution, the juvenile and his adult accomplice had on November 14, 2016 gone to the house of victims Sanjay Rana and his wife on the pretext of taking a room on rent but shot them dead instead.
The juvenile was apprehended by the police on November 21, 2016 and a country-made pistol with six cartridges were recovered from him, it said.
It said the juvenile committed the offence as the victims had failed to return the money lent to them by his father for purchase of a plot.
Taking note of this, the court said, "Considering the alleged motive behind the commission of the offence and the role attributed to the appellant, the Board rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant should be tried as an adult. The appeal is without merits. The same is accordingly dismissed."
The court also held that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the JJB proved that the boy was above 16 years of age and he had no psychiatric illness or intellectual disability, which meant he was fit to understand the consequences of the offence.
"The offence under Section 302 IPC being punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years, falls within the category of 'heinous offences' as defined in JJ Act. Thus, the Board rightly proceeded to conduct the preliminary assessment under the act," it also said.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
