The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that the 
law did not allow the juvenile, convicted by juvenile board in the 
December 16 gangrape, to be tried twice for the same offence as sought 
by the parents of victims who demanded his retrial by a criminal court.
The
 Ministry of Women and Child Development said it would be legally and 
constitutionally impermissible to put him on trial again as the Juvenile
 Justice (JJ) Board has already given its verdict of guilt of the 
juvenile and the prayer for his fresh trial has been rendered redundant.
“As
 such, under Article 20 of the Constitution as also Section 300 of 
criminal procedure code, there can be no second trial for the same 
offence, and the adjudication of guilt of the juvenile offender having 
been determined by the JJ Board under Juvenile Justice (Care and 
Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the second prayer does not survive 
nor was sustainable,” the ministry said in its affidavit.
The
 Ministry’s reply came on a plea filed by the father of the December 16 
gangrape victim that the juvenility of an accused needs to be 
ascertained by a criminal court and not by the Juvenile Justice Board.
The
 issue came up for hearing before a bench headed by Justice B.S. 
Chauhan, which tagged the petition filed by victim’s parents with the 
plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy who has also sought fresh 
interpretation of the term juvenile.
Dr. Swamy has 
also contended that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of 
Children) Act provides for a “straitjacket” interpretation of the term 
‘juvenile’ that a person below the age of 18 years is a minor and it was
 in violation of the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the 
Child (UNCRC) and Beijing Rules on the issue.
The 
UNCRC and Beijing Rules say the presumption of “the age of criminal 
responsibility” be fixed while “bearing in mind the mental and 
intellectual maturity” of offender, he has said.
Raising
 the identical issue, the victim’s father had said the August 31, 2013 
verdict of the Board was not acceptable to the family so they are 
challenging the constitutional validity of the Juvenile Justice (Care 
and Protection of Children) Act 2000, as there is no other authority 
concerned to which they can approach for such relief.
The
 victim’s father has sought a direction to declare “as unconstitutional 
and void the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act to 
the extent it puts a blanket ban on the power of the criminal courts to 
try a juvenile offender for offences committed under the IPC”.
The
 petition filed through advocate Aman Hingorani said the juvenile “is 
liable to be tried and punished by the criminal courts for the aforesaid
 offences, complete with the judicial discretion on established 
principles of law regarding the award of sentence keeping in view, 
amongst other factors, the nature and gravity of the offence“.
The
 petition referred to the trial court verdict by which four adult 
accused were convicted and sentenced to death and sought similar trial 
for the then juvenile offender, who has now turned major.
“One
 of the accused (Respondent No 2--juvenile), however, has not been tried
 at all for the offences committed under the Indian Penal Code by the 
criminal court on the premise that he is a juvenile in conflict with law
 aged 17 years,” the petition, in which the Centre and the accused have 
been named as respondents, said.
It also stated that 
“the blanket protection to juvenile offenders from being tried by the 
criminal courts for offences under the IPC, is an instance of 
legislative adjudication, and hence unconstitutional“.
On the night of December 16, 2012, the girl was gangraped and brutally assaulted by six persons in a moving bus in New Delhi.
One among them was the juvenile, so he was tried by the Board.
The victim succumbed to her injuries in a Singapore hospital on December 29, 2012.
A provision of the JJA says “’juvenile’ or ‘child’ means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age.”
The
 juvenile, who was six months short of 18 years at the time of incident,
 was convicted for gangrape and murder of the 23-year-old girl but he 
got away with a maximum of three years imprisonment mandated under the 
juvenile law by the Juvenile Justice Board here.
The 
four adult accused -- Akshay Thakur, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta and 
Mukesh -- were tried by a fast-track court which awarded them death 
penalty. Now the Delhi High Court has kept its order reserved for 
confirmation.
Another accused Ram Singh was found dead on March 11, 2013 in his cell in Tihar Jail and the trial against him had been abated.
Comments
Post a Comment