The juvenile justice system must walk a fine line between its focus on rehabilitation and punishment for heinous offence
Published Date – 24 May 2024, 11:54 PM
By Kushank Sindhu
The recent horrific car crash in Pune and the subsequent order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Pune, has provided an opportunity for us to review the extant juvenile law in India. By most accounts, on May 19, 2024, purportedly a Porsche car driven by a 17-year-old, ran over two IT professionals in Pune resulting in their death on the spot. The driver was arrested and thereafter produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which granted bail to the accused by imposing conditions such as writing a 300-word essay, examining the traffic rules, making a presentation to RTO authorities, working with a traffic constable and painting traffic awareness boards. The driver at the time of the accident was allegedly under the influence of alcohol.
The JJB had also reportedly rejected the prayer of the police to try the accused known as “Child in Conflict with the Law” or “CCL” in juvenile legalese, to be tried as an adult. The bail conditions sparked public outrage. Thereafter, it has been reported that the bail has been cancelled and the accused has been sent to a juvenile home.
JJ Act, 2015
Given the fact that Indian society is governed by a highly structured criminal justice system, in times like these, it is worthwhile for citizens to go back to the fundamental principles of juvenile justice and criminal jurisprudence in India, examine their legislative intent and application.
The principal legislation that operates in this domain is the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act, 2015). The JJ Act, 2015, repealed the erstwhile Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the JJ Act, 2015, records that data collected by the National Crime Records Bureau establishes that crimes by children in the age group of 16-18 years have increased especially in certain categories of heinous offences. The provisions of the 2000 legislation were ill-equipped to tackle child offenders in this age group necessitating the repeal of the 2000 legislation and the introduction of the JJ Act, 2015.
The JJ Act, 2015, covers various aspects of handling children and appears to look at the issue of care of children more holistically. It provides different procedures to deal with Children in Conflict with Law and Children in Need of Care and Protection while also covering aspects such as Rehabilitation and Social Re-Integration, adoption, offences against children and so on.
One aspect that lawmakers could explore is the protection of juveniles from excessive public gaze, especially in high-profile cases
The Act defines a CCL to mean a child who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and who has not completed 18 years of age on the date of commission of such offence. Once a CCL has been apprehended by the police, like the other criminal procedural enactments, the CCL must be produced before the JJB within 24 hours from the apprehension.
Pune Case
In the context of the Pune accident case, a few aspects of the functioning of the JJB must be highlighted.
The Act requires any person who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence and who has been apprehended, to be released on bail. It is only in the case that there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or that the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, the person should not be released. In the event the JJB decides not to release the individual, it must mandatorily record the reasons for denying the bail and the circumstances that led to the decision.
Further, the Act defines heinous offences to include the offences for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years or more. As per some accounts, the Pune police have imposed Sections 304 and 304A, IPC, on the CCL involved in the accident. Section 304 covers punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the punishment could be either imprisonment for life, or for a term which may extend to ten years, or a fine, depending upon the nature of the crime committed.
As per Section 304A, whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Understanding the concept of “heinous offences” in the context of the JJ Act, 2015, and the nature of imprisonment that can be awarded under the two sections of the IPC above is important as the accused in the Pune accident case is allegedly a juvenile and, at present, being subject to the more relaxed conditions of bail or even incarceration.
However, the protection that is provided by the juvenile legal system may not be available to the accused if the JJB, upon a preliminary assessment into the “heinous offences” which the accused is being charged with committing (ie under Section 304, IPC), with regard to the accused’s mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, comes to the conclusion that there is a need for a trial of the said child as an adult. In such a case, the JJB may order the transfer of the trial of the case to the Children’s Court having jurisdiction to try such offences.
Crimes committed by juveniles and the consequent public outrage on the way the juveniles are dealt with by the Indian legal system are not a new phenomenon. In the gruesome Nirbhaya case as well, the juvenile was reportedly awarded imprisonment of about three years for the rape and murder of the victim, the maximum possible sentence which could be awarded by the JJB. This was interpreted by some to mean that the juvenile had been “let off”. Against the backdrop of the Nirbhaya case, the Justice JS Verma Committee was set up which provided comprehensive guidelines for amendments to the criminal law in India which includes juvenile law.
The committee highlighted the findings of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs. union of India (2011) 5 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court had stated that “rehabilitation will be the measure of success of the Juvenile Justice Act”. The committee upon a review of scientific and legal evidence concluded that the age of ‘juveniles’ ought not to be reduced to 16 years.
The juvenile justice system must walk a fine line between its focus on juvenile rehabilitation and punishment for heinous offences.
Sometimes, there may appear to be a mismatch between societal expectations from the Indian legal system, especially in the trial of juveniles for heinous offences and the nuanced juvenile justice and criminal jurisprudence in India. Cases such as the Pune accident case and the Nirbhaya case shake the conscience of the public.
The Pune accident case will once again bring the canons of juvenile justice and criminal jurisprudence in India into the limelight. We must analyse how the “system” responds to the public cries for justice and retribution for the gruesome incident and whether the episode highlights the need for any amendments to the law. One aspect that lawmakers could explore is the protection of juveniles from excessive public gaze which could occur especially in high-profile cases.
The author is Advocate, Supreme Court of India)
Source link
