Latest news with #JJB
News18
5 days ago
- News18
Allahabad HC Shields Juvenile From Adult Trial, Flags Dangers Of Digital Age
Last Updated: The 16-year-old boy was accused of rape and causing abortion 'The good-old-days icon of a truant child seems to get replaced by the modern-day mascot of a violent predator," the Allahabad High Court observed, as it intervened to stop the adult prosecution of a 16-year-old boy accused of rape and causing abortion. Quoting with approval from the Bombay High Court's observations on the psychological fallout of unregulated digital exposure, the court noted that 'television, internet and social media have let the children, especially the adolescents, leapfrog into the adult world… Mostly it is a crash-landing, with disastrous consequences." The remarks came as Justice Siddharth allowed a criminal revision filed by a minor, referred to as Juvenile X, against orders of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and a special POCSO court in Kaushambi that had directed he be tried as an adult for a 'heinous offence". A consensual physical relationship developed between the juvenile and a 14-year-old girl, which led to pregnancy. When the girl was five months pregnant, it was alleged that the boy, with the help of two adults, gave her medicine that caused a miscarriage. He was booked under POCSO, and the JJB conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, concluding he should face an adult trial. However, the High Court found that the process adopted by the Board and the POCSO court was not in conformity with the law. The boy had undergone a psychological evaluation that revealed a mental age of six years and an IQ of 66, indicative of mild intellectual disability. He struggled with academic performance, had poor social interaction, and scored in the borderline to mild clinical range on behavioural tests. Despite these findings, the JJB dismissed the report and based its decision largely on the allegations and the statement of the victim. 'This Court finds that the report of psychologist was in favour of the revisionist… the revisionist with score of 62 comes in borderline category which is even below the category of low/below average," the court said, adding that 'he was not capable nor he took decision to administer the victim medicine alone". Justice Siddharth observed that 'an order under Section 15… not only gives a different legal character to a juvenile… but also takes away the application of the beneficial provisions" under juvenile law. The court stressed that such an order must be the result of 'a crucial judicial examination", and not a routine endorsement of FIR content or assumptions about intent. Criticising what it described as a 'mechanical" application of Section 15, the court said, 'Retributive approach vis-à-vis juveniles needs to be shunned unless there are exceptional circumstances… Let no child be condemned unless his fate is foreordained by his own destructive conduct". The orders of the JJB and POCSO court were set aside, and the High Court directed that the boy be tried as a juvenile under the special procedure laid down in the Juvenile Justice Act. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
India Today
6 days ago
- India Today
Explained: Why a 53-year-old rape convict will be sentenced as a juvenile
A 53-year-old man will appear before a juvenile justice board in Ajmer for appropriate punishment in a rape case, the Supreme Court of India ruled on July The case involves a 53-year-old Rajasthan man convicted for raping a minor in 1988 and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment by a trial court, a decision upheld by the Rajasthan High Court in in 2025, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court, raising a plea of juvenility, claiming he was only 16 years old at the time of the offense. This claim was based on his school records, which indicated his date of birth as July 1, 1972, making him a minor (under 18 years) when the crime was committed. The Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, noted that the prosecution's case was robust, supported by the survivor's testimony, witness statements, and medical Court accepted his claim of being a juvenile based on his school records, which were deemed reliable evidence under the Juvenile Justice objections from the Rajasthan government counsel, who argued against granting juvenile status after decades, the court cited prior rulings that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after a case's the court set aside the earlier sentence, as it could not be sustained under juvenile justice provisions, and directed the JJB to issue appropriate JJB may send the man to a special home for a maximum of three years, as per the Juvenile Justice are the key provisions of India's Juvenile Justice laws relevant to this case?The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, defines a juvenile as a person under 18 at the time of the are tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, not adult courts. They cannot face adult penalties like life imprisonment or measures, such as counselling or placement in a juvenile home for up to three years, are prioritised (Section 18).At the time of the offense, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, was in effect, defining boys under 16 and girls under 18 as juveniles. However, the Supreme Court applied the beneficial provisions of the 2015 Act, which raised the age to 18 for all is this case significant?The case underscores that juvenility claims remain valid regardless of the time elapsed or the accused's current age. It reinforces the principle that juveniles must be treated differently, even for serious crimes, and highlights the retrospective application of beneficial juvenile justice provisions.- Ends
Time of India
17-07-2025
- Time of India
Why Pune teen accused of mowing down two techies won't stand trial as adult
Why Pune teen accused of mowing down two techies won't stand trial as adult Sunil Baghel TNN Updated: Jul 17, 2025, 15:38 IST Despite a police plea, the allegedly inebriated teenage driver behind the death of two people in Pune in 2024 will not face trial as an adult. On July 15, the Pune Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) ruled that a 17-year old who is accused of mowing down two techies in May 2024 while driving a Porsche Taycan under the influence of alcohol, cannot be tried as an adult. The decision came in response to the Pune Police's decision to alter the charges against the teenager after he was granted bail last year.
Indian Express
16-07-2025
- Indian Express
Porsche crash case: After JJB ruling, what next for minor, possible outcomes
THE Juvenile Justice Board in Pune on Tuesday rejected the city police's plea to try the minor accused in the Porsche crash case as an adult. So what course will the proceedings now take? How will the prosecution pursue their case and where does the law stand if the child is found to be in conflict with the law or otherwise? The chronology at the JJB In the early hours of May 19 last year, the then 17-year-old minor was allegedly driving the Porsche Taycan at a high speed while he was intoxicated when the car crashed into a bike killing two software engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta. He was detained and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) the same afternoon. Police sought his custody in an observation home and requested he be tried as an adult, but the JJB rejected both pleas and granted bail with conditions, including writing an essay, studying traffic norms, and undergoing de-addiction counselling. Amid public outcry, Pune Police challenged the order in district court, which sent the matter back to the JJB. On May 22, the JJB remanded the minor to an observation home until June, with psychological and de-addiction counselling included in his rehabilitation. His initial remand ended June 5 and was extended to June 12. Police then sought another 14-day extension, while the defence requested his release to family. After hearing both sides, the JJB extended the remand to June 25. However, the Bombay High Court, responding to a habeas corpus plea from his aunt, ruled the remand illegal and ordered the minor's release into her care. The minor has turned 18 in the later half of 2024. How will the case proceed now? If after a preliminary assessment, the JJB were to pass an order that there is a need for the minor to be tried as an adult, then the case would be referred to a designated Children's Court. However, now that the JJB has rejected the plea, future proceedings will be held under section 14 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which pertains to 'Inquiry by JJB regarding child in conflict with law', which is similar to the trial. A lawyer who has practiced at the JJB for several years, said, 'This inquiry by the JJB is conducted in ways which are similar to a regular trial. Now the arguments will be held on the charges. Subsequently there will be framing of charges where the minor is asked whether he pleads guilty or nor guilty. Then witnesses are called. The examination-in-chief and cross examination of these witnesses is held.' The lawyer added, 'When the minor is initially produced before the JJB, a Social Investigation Report is prepared by a probation officer, comprising family background of the child and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the JJB for making the inquiry. This report along with a report from the counsellors forms a key basis of the order of the JJB, this is where the inquiry is different than a trial.' The three member JJB is headed by a magistrate with at least three years experience and two social workers, of whom at least one is a woman. When contacted, the minor's lawyer, advocate Prashant Patil said, 'In the next hearing of the JJB we expect to hold arguments over the charges. We are expecting an independent and fair proceeding without getting affected by the allegations coming from the media trial and only on the basis of evidence collected by the investigation agency.' Outcomes of the inquiry If the JJB finds that the child is not in conflict with law, order is passed accordingly. The JJB may find the child in conflict with law based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, under section 18 of JJ Act. The JJB can pass the following orders — Allow the child to go home after advice or admonition by following the appropriate inquiry and counselling. — Direct the child to participate in group counselling and similar activities. — Order the child to perform community service under the supervision of an organisation or institution. — Order the child or the parents or the guardian of the child to pay a fine. Direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent or guardian. — Direct the child to be released on probation into the care of a facility for any period not exceeding three years. — Direct the child to be sent to a special home, for a period not exceeding three years, for providing reformative services and psychiatric support. Will appeal, need for wider debate: Special Prosecutor Special Public Prosecutor advocate Shishir Hiray said, 'We will be filing an appeal against the JJB ruling in the stipulated time period of 30 days. We are thoroughly studying the orders. We are also holding discussions with the investigation agency, senior police officers and the Law and Judiciary department of the government.' Hiray added, 'However this entire case and ongoing legal proceedings are crucial in multiple ways. First, as we have argued time again, that in this case attempts were made to change the entire course of justice delivery by tampering with the evidence. Going a step further, there is a need for a much wider national level debate on what constitutes a heinous crime under the provisions of the JJ Act and the provisions surrounding that aspect.'
Indian Express
16-07-2025
- Indian Express
Porsche car crash: JJB rejects police plea for trying 17 yr old minor driver as an adult
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has today rejected the application by the Pune city police seeking an order that the minor accused in the Porsche car crash be tried as an adult. Two IT engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and his friend Ashwini Koshta, both aged 24 and hailing from Madhya Pradesh, were killed after the speeding Porsche driven by a 17-year-old boy allegedly in an inebriated state hit their motorcycle around 2.30 am on May 19, 2024. Same day, a first information report (FIR) was lodged against the minor car driver at the Yerwada police station. Subsequently, citing sections of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Pune city police filed an application at JJB, seeking an order that the child in conflict with law (CCL) be tried as an adult in this case. Prosecution had argued that CCL (minor car driver) accused committed a 'heinous offence' and was driving the Porsche car after consuming liquor despite knowing its consequences The defence lawyer opposed the application saying the present offence cannot be legally termed as 'heinous. The defence lawyer had also argued that the object of Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act is 'reformative' and not 'punitive'. A senior police officer confirmed that the JJB today passed an order in favour of the CCL. Earlier, when police had detained the minor and produced him before the JJB on May 19, he was granted by the JJB on conditions that he would 'write an essay of 300 words' on 'topic in effect of road accidents and their solutions', assist RTO officers and practice and study traffic rules for 15 days. But, following a public uproar, the minor was sent to an observation home on May 22. Apparently, the police again submitted applications at the JJB on May 21 and May 22, for trying the CCL as an adult. The minor's paternal aunt had then moved a plea before the high court (HC) and sought his release, claiming that as per the JJ Act 2015, it needs to be ensured that any conflict with the law does not result in him turning into a hardened criminal. On June 25, the HC ordered the minor's release and that he be handed over into the care of his paternal aunt. Subsequently, the minor was released from the observation home. Meanwhile, the police investigation had revealed that when the minor driver, who is son of a prominent realtor, was taken to the government-run Sassoon Hospital after the accident for a medical examination, his blood sample was allegedly replaced with his mother's. A police probe also confirmed that blood samples of the two friends of the minor driver, who were in the Porsche at the time of the accident, were also swapped at Sassoon hospital. Police arrested and chargesheeted ten persons including the minor's parents, Dr Ajay Taware, the then head of the Forensic Medicine Department of Sassoon Hospital, Dr Shrihari Halnor, the casualty medical officer at the time, Atul Ghatkamble, a morgue staff and others. They are booked under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 304, 279, 338, 337, 427, 120 (b), 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109 and sections of the Motor Vehicle Act and Prevention of Corruption Act. Special public prosecutor (SPP) Shishir Hiray had argued at the JJB that minor accused had been booked under IPC sections 467 (forgery) and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which attract punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment for up to ten year. 'So he has committed a 'heinous offence' as per section 2 (33) of JJ Act, which says that offences having punishment of imprisonment for seven years or more are 'heinous', Hiray had argued. Prosecution had submitted that in case of a heinous offence, as per section 15 (1) of JJ Act, the JJB shall conduct a preliminary assessment of a minor's mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, his ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the said crime. Prosecution submitted that after the preliminary assessment under section 15 (1), the JJB can, under section 18 (3) of the JJ Act, pass an order for trial of the minor as an adult. SPP Hiray had argued before the JJB the actual driver of the Porsche had asked the minor not to drive the car. 'But still the minor drove the Porsche after consuming liquor and committed the crime. He knew the consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was present at the Sassoon hospital when his blood samples were swapped. He knew swapping blood samples was a crime. So he was aware of the consequences of the offence and should be tried as an adult,' Hiray had said. Defence lawyer Prashant Patil submitted before the JJB that the CCL has no prior criminal record and the Porsche crash incident, though unfortunate, arose out of a moment of poor judgement, not criminal intention. Citing a Supreme Court judgement in Shilpa Mittal versus State of Delhi case, Patil had claimed that the present offence may not legally qualify as 'heinous' and hence section (15) of JJ Act should not be invoked in this case. Patil had also submitted that as per section 2 (12) of JJ Act, any person below the age of 18 years is considered a child. Patil argued the goal of juvenile justice is to 'rehabilitate' and not to punish the minor in the same way as for adults.
