Calling Family Land "Ancestral" Is Not Enough — Must Trace Four Generations Of Male Lineage To Stop Father From Selling It: Punjab & Haryana HC Marks Of Candidates In Public Exam Not Private Information, Disclosable Under RTI: Allahabad High Court Integrity of a Judge Is Difficult to Prove by Direct Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Adverse ACR Entry Against Judicial Officer When State Reorganisation Is Already Done, Section 103 Of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act Cannot Undo It: Supreme Court Rules Sugarcane Societies Are Not Multi-State Bodies Bihar Cannot Take Over A Century-Old Library By Paying One Rupee As Compensation: Supreme Court Strikes Down 2015 Act Call Records Without Section 65-B Certificate Are Inadmissible, Oral Evidence Of Nodal Officer No Substitute: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Minority Shareholders Cannot Block Capital Reduction By Majority: Supreme Court Upholds Bharti Telecom's Buyout Of 1.09% Individual Investors At Rs.196.80 Per Share Travel Bans On Unvaccinated, No Disclosure Of Deaths Abroad: Supreme Court Finds COVID Vaccine Programme Violated Articles 14, 19 And 21 Bottle Cap Supplier Gets Anticipatory Bail In Spurious Liquor Case: Supreme Court Finds No Raid At His Premises, No Misuse Of Liberty DNA And Chemical Analyst Reports Cannot Be Read In Evidence Without Examining Scientific Experts: Bombay High Court Proof Of Agreement Alone Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Specific Performance - Continuous Readiness And Willingness Is A Condition Precedent: Chhattisgarh High Court Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Replace Proof: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Bank Clerk’s Dismissal in Rs. 38.67 Lakh Pension Account Case Cheque Dishonour Due To ‘Account Blocked’ Cannot Attract Section 138 NI Act When Drawer Had No Control Over Frozen Account: Karnataka High Court Mere Domestic Discord Or Harassment Is Not Abetment Of Suicide: Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband’s Acquittal Silence On Incriminating Circumstance Can Strengthen Prosecution Case: Gauhati High Court On Section 313 CrPC Even In Heinous Offences, Accused Cannot Be Kept In Jail Indefinitely: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail After 7 Years Of Trial Delay Acquittal On Benefit Of Doubt Cannot Rescue Police Officer From Removal: Kerala High Court Upholds Dismissal Despite Criminal Court's Not Guilty Verdict Trial Court Cannot Ignore High Court Directions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Fresh Enquiry And Initiates Disciplinary Action State Cannot Shrug Responsibility For Vaccine Deaths: Supreme Court Directs Centre To Frame No-Fault Compensation Policy For COVID-19 Adverse Events Supreme Court Streamlines Procedural Safeguards For Passive Euthanasia

Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Juvenile’s Trial as an Adult

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the decision to try a juvenile as an adult in a high-profile murder case. The court’s ruling came in response to a criminal revision petition filed by the minor, challenging the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

The case revolves around the accused, referred to as Bholu, who was involved in a murder offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Despite being a minor at the time of the incident, the Juvenile Justice Board had earlier transferred the trial to the Children’s Court, treating Bholu as an adult. The decision was subsequently challenged and remanded for fresh consideration by the Supreme Court.

Justice Anoop Chitkara, presiding over the Punjab and Haryana High Court bench, delivered the judgment, stating, “The impugned order suffers from no illegality and has been passed in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.”

The court’s decision was based on a comprehensive assessment conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board. The assessment included psychological evaluations, clinical assessments, and social investigation reports. After considering the reports and interactions with the accused, the Board concluded that Bholu possessed the mental and physical capacity to commit the offense and comprehend its consequences.

The High Court’s judgment noted that the Board had strictly adhered to the Supreme Court’s directions and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. The court further highlighted that the transfer of the case to the Children’s Court was justified given the nature of the offense and the legislative mandate to conduct a preliminary assessment of the accused’s capacity.

The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for cases involving minors in conflict with the law. It reinforces the principle that in certain heinous offenses, the mental and physical capacity of the accused must be evaluated comprehensively, taking into account their understanding of the offense and its consequences.

The decision also emphasizes the need for a balanced approach in cases involving juveniles, considering both their age and the gravity of the offense. The court exercised restraint in discussing the details of the crime to prevent any prejudice against the juvenile.

The judgment is seen as a landmark ruling, providing clarity on the legal framework for assessing the capacity of juveniles in conflict with the law. It establishes guidelines for conducting assessments and highlights the importance of adhering to due process and the principles of natural justice.

The defense and prosecution, as well as legal experts, are closely monitoring the case due to its implications for future trials involving juveniles. The trial will now proceed in the Children’s Court, expediting the process as per the court’s order.

D/D. 03.05.2023.

Bholu, a 'Juvinile in conflict with law' vs Central Bureau of Investigation

 

Latest Legal News