Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In a recent development, three persons aged 18 years were convicted for attempt to murder under section 307 of the IPC. This transpired when the convicts were 17 years old. The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition challenging the two orders of the Juvenile Justice Board passed on January 19, 2018, and July 13, 2018. Before elucidating the substance of the case, it is imperative to understand that section 2(12) of the Juvenile Justice Act defines the word “Child”,that is, any person who has not completed the 18 years of age. As per section 19(3) of the said Act, the accused child may be put in a place of safety, and he would be transferred to the Jail upon attaining the age of 21.
Since the petitioners were 17 years old at the time of committing the alleged crime, the Juvenile Justice Board required the assistance of a psychologist to assess the mental ability of the convicts. In accordance with section 15 of the said Act, the assessment report was placed before the Juvenile Justice Board, and on scrutinizing the facts therein, the board came to a conclusion that the convicts were mentally sufficient to understand the consequences.
Advocate Satyavrat Joshi, on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the convicts fall within the definition of “Child” provided in the Juvenile Justice Act. In support of his contention, he referred to the time at which the convicts committed the crime. Therefore, he emphasized that the convicts should be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board and not the Children’s Court. In case they are tried before the children’s court, it would result in prejudice to them considering section 19 of the Act.
The Court ascertained that minimum punishment is not prescribed for the offence under section 307 of the IPC;however, the punishment may extend up to ten years or more, and if hurt is caused, it shall bring life imprisonment to the offender. The Judicial Institution also found that minimum punishment for heinous crimes is seven years.
The court said that there was no need for assessment of the mental ability as the petitioners directly fall under section 18 of the said Act. The provision provides that the Juvenile justice Board may pass an order according to section 18(1) (a) to (g) if it is satisfied on inquiry that the child has either committed a petty or serious offence, and the child is below 16 years of age. In fact, the petitioners were 17 years old, and they have committed any heinous offence. Therefore, the instant case does not attract section 15 of the said Act, and thus, no order can be passed under section 18(3) for transferring the case to the Children’s Court. Hence, the court directed the Juvenile Justice Board to conduct an inquiry under section 18(3) of the Act.
86540
103860
630
114
59824