-
by sayum
08 May 2026 6:59 AM
In a judgement setting aside the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, the Supreme Court noted that the leniency with which juveniles are treated in the name of reformation is emboldening them to commit heinous crimes.
The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and J B Pardiwala noted the rising trend of adolescent delinquency in India.
The case involves the 2019 gang-rape and murder of an 8-year-old girl in Kathua. A Pathankot Special Court condemned three men to life in June 2019. Three police officers were given 5-year sentences for destroying evidence. The Juvenile Justice Board will try Shubham Sangra. Shubham Sangra was the nephew of Sanji Ram, the temple's caretaker. The Supreme Court moved the trial from Kathua to Pathanktot, Punjab, because attorneys obstructed justice by protesting the police's detention of the accused.
Later, based on a physical, dental, and radiological exam of the accused (Shubham Sangra), the Special Medical Board estimated his age to be 19+. Sangra filed a claim as a juvenile with the CJM, Kathua, under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2013. It was approved. The HCJK maintained the CJM's order.
The Supreme Court panel ruled that the accused was not a juvenile at the time of the crime and should be tried like other co-defendants. The court noted that if there is a clear and unambiguous argument in favour of the juvenile charged that he was a minor at the time of the occurrence, he would be entitled to special protection under the Juvenile Justice Act. When an accused commits a heinous and grave crime like the one at hand and tries to take statutory shelter under the guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording whether an accused is a juvenile or not cannot be permitted as the courts are enjoined to perform their duties to protect the confidence of a common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice. The principle of benevolent legislation attached to the Juvenile Justice Act would thus be extended only to cases in which the accused is held to be a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence inspiring confidence regarding his minority as the benefit of two views regarding the age of the alleged accused who is involved in a grave and serious offence he is alleged to have committed and carried out in a well-intentioned manner.
As a farewell note, Justice Pardiwala said.
State of Jammu & Kashmir
vs
Shubam Sangra
