- The High Court of Bombay in The State of Maharashtra v Shadab Tabarak Khan [Criminal Revision Application No. 90 of 2021] while dealing with a heinous crime committed by a child in conflict with Law ruled that the child can not be automatically tried as an adult even if it commits a heinous crime. The Court had to make an assessment into the heinous crime under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for such determination.
- In the instant case, the State had preferred the application against the order of Juvenile Justice Board, which was confirmed by the Trial Court, rejecting the application of the State requesting the transfer of Respondent to Children’s Court for trial as an adult.
- The Respondent, in the instant case, was the Child in Conflict with Law who was allegedly involved in the terrorist activities in the areas of Aurangabad by the Anti-Terrorism Squad.
- The JJ Act defines a “child in conflict with law” as a child who has allegedly committed an offence and had not completed the age of 18 during the commission of the offence [Section 2 (13) of the JJ Act]. Heinous Crimes are the offence for which the minimum punishment is imprisonment for seven years or more in accordance with the Indian Penal Code or any other existing law [Section 2 (33) of the JJ Act].
- Section 15 of the J.J. Act provides that the Juvenile Justice Board has to conduct a preliminary assessment regarding the mental and physical capacity of the child to commit the heinous offence, the ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he has allegedly committed the offence for determining whether the child in conflict with Law would be tried as an adult.
- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 787] had held that the sine qua non for trying a Child in Conflict with Law as an adult for committing the heinous offence is that the minimum punishment for alleged committed offence should be seven years.
- The learned Juvenile Justice Board had held that neither of Sections 18, 20, 38, and 39, under which the Respondent has alleged committed offence, provided for the minimum punishment of seven years.
- The High Court of Bombay held that the learned Juvenile Justice Board and the learned Appellate Court had not erred in rejecting the application of the State Applicant.
"Loved reading this piece by Barsha ?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
