Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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