Case title: CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
Case no:
Order on: May 07, 2024
Quorum: J. C.T. Ravikumar & J. Rajesh Bindal
Facts:
The case involves a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) who was accused of offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). After the CCL’s apprehension, a decision was sought regarding whether the CCL should be tried as a juvenile or as an adult. Initially, the Principal Magistrate of the Board ruled that the CCL should be tried as an adult, but a dissenting view was expressed by another member of the Board.
Subsequently, the matter was heard again, and it was decided that the CCL should be treated as a juvenile. However, the complainant, who is the mother of the victim, filed an application for termination of proceedings and transferring the matter to the Children’s Court. This application was dismissed by the Board.
The complainant then filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was allowed. The High Court set aside the Board’s order and directed the transmission of the case record to the Children’s Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant representing the child argued several important points during the case. Firstly, they dynamically challenged the validity of the Board’s decision-making process by stating that the decision to treat the child as an adult was made without considering all the facts properly. Further, they pointed out that when the decision was reversed, it wasn’t done fairly because it was done without presence of the Principal Magistrate and predicated solely on a dissenting view, that fell short of procedural fairness and coherence. Moreover, the appellant emphasized a stringent interpretation of statutory provisions, asserting that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, had not been appropriately construed and applied by the Board. They contended that the decision to dismiss the complainant’s application aligned with legal stipulations. They believed that the child’s best interests were not considered enough. Finally, they questioned why a higher court changed the decision without good reasons. Overall, they wanted to make sure that the child was treated fairly and according to the laws meant to protect young people.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The representative for the State of Karnataka and another party contested the Board’s initial decision to try the child as an adult by citing flaws in the supporting reports. Additionally, the respondent scrutinized the procedural irregularities surrounding the Board’s decision-making process, highlighting the dissenting view expressed by a member and its subsequent impact on the final determination. They argued that this dissenting view, coupled with the absence of the Principal Magistrate during the reconsideration of the matter, cast doubt on the procedural integrity of the decision. Furthermore, the respondent advocated for a comprehensive interpretation of statutory provisions, contending that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, necessitated a nuanced approach to the adjudication of cases involving children in conflict with the law. They emphasized the importance of considering the child’s best interest in determining the appropriate legal process. Lastly, they defended the High Court’s intervention, citing deficiencies in the Board’s decision-making process. Overall, they aimed to ensure fair treatment and uphold principles within the juvenile justice system.
Legal Provisions:
Sections 376(i) of IPC: Deals with the offense of rape.
Sections 4 of POCSO Act, 2012: Deals with punishment for penetrative sexual assault.
Section 19 of the JJ Act: Powers of Children’s Court
Section 18(3) of the JJ Act: deals with the determination of the age of the child.
Section 101(1) of the JJ Act: pertains to the burden of proof in cases involving children in conflict with the law.
Section 102 of the JJ Act: Revision
Issues framed by Court:
- Whether the preliminary assessment report and social investigation report support trying the CCL as an adult by the Children’s Court or as a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board.
- Whether the dissenting view expressed by a member of the Juvenile Justice Board holds merit and should be considered in the decision-making process.
- Whether the application filed by the complainant, seeking termination of proceedings and transfer of the case to the Children’s Court, has legal grounds and should be granted.
- Whether the decision of the Board to dismiss the complainant’s application was appropriate and in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- Whether the High Court’s intervention in setting aside the Board’s order and directing the transmission of the case record to the Children’s Court is justified based on the facts and legal considerations presented in the case.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement:
Upon the analysis, the court likely scrutinized the procedural irregularities surrounding the Board’s decision-making process, including the dissenting view expressed by a member and the absence of the Principal Magistrate during the reconsideration of the matter. Moreover, the court examined the statutory provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to determine whether the Board’s decision was in accordance with the law and are associated with the best interest of the child.
Eventually, the court might have concluded that the Board’s decision lacked procedural fairness and coherence, and that its dismissal of the complainant’s application did not adequately consider the child’s best interest as mandated by the law. Therefore, the court likely upheld the High Court’s intervention, setting aside the Board’s decision and directing the transmission of the case record to the Children’s Court for further adjudication. It is believed that this ruling aimed at ensuring a fair and just process for the Child in Conflict with Law and safeguarding their rights and welfare within the juvenile justice framework.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta
