A child sessions court in Gurugram upheld the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) that the juvenile accused in the murder of a Class II student of a private school in Bhondsi last September be tried as an adult.
By being tried as an adult, the accused can be subjected to stringent punishment if convicted.
The court also dismissed the pleas by the defence against the JJB’s decision to grant his custody to the CBI and allow the agency to take his finger prints.
Rejecting all three appeals challenging the respective judgments of the JJB, Additional Sessions Judge J. S. Kundu observed that the decision of the JJB was reasoned, judicious and sustainable in the eyes of the law.
The court had heard the arguments of all the three parties in the case during a series of hearings over the past few weeks and fixed May 21 for the verdict.
Welcoming the court’s verdict, the complainant’s lawyer Sushil Tekriwal said that “absolute justice was effected” and that the juvenile should not be shown leniency after committing such a heinous offence.
“It is proved that the appeals filed by the juvenile accused are abuse of the process of the court and shall frustrate ends of justice and therefore the same were opposed by the deceased’s family tooth-and-nail,” said Mr. Tekriwal.
“I am glad that our contention has been acknowledged by the court and significant verdict is delivered today (on Monday) in terms of the findings that the juvenile accused shall be tried as an adult,” he added.
‘Will appeal decision’
Defence counsel Tanveer Ahmed Mir told The Hindu that he was not disappointed with the verdict and would “certainly make an appeal to the higher court”.
He said that he was yet to see the order but added that there were several constitutional issues involving the Juvenile Justice Act that the Supreme Court would have to settle.
Opposing the JJB’s decision to try the accused as an adult, the defence had, in a series of hearings, contended that the Social Investigation Report (SIR) and the Psychological Report had “nothing against the juvenile”.
They also argued that the juvenile was not provided the copies of the two reports, which was in violation of the criminal trial’s basic principle of fair disclosure and they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the expert who had prepared the Psychological Report.
Ruling that the juvenile delinquent be tried as an adult, the JJB had in its order on December 20 referred to the statements of his teachers in the SIR suggesting that he was “aggressive”, “short-tempered” and remained “upset” due to constant quarrel between his parents.
