Criminal Liability For Custodial Violence Against Juveniles
Criminal Liability for Custodial Violence Against Juveniles
Custodial violence against juveniles is a grave issue that has been a matter of concern in many jurisdictions around the world. In India, Nepal, and other common law countries, the law explicitly protects juveniles from torture, abuse, or any form of violence while in custody, whether it be in police stations, juvenile homes, or any other institution. Violations of these protections lead to both criminal liability and civil liability for the perpetrators and institutions involved.
Legal Framework
Indian Legal Framework:
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: Sections like Section 330 (torture to extract confession), Section 331 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), and Section 342 (wrongful confinement) are relevant.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: This act ensures that juveniles are not subjected to any form of physical or mental abuse in custodial settings.
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012: This act provides specific protection against sexual abuse in custodial settings.
Constitutional Protection: Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and 20 (Protection from Double Jeopardy and Arbitrary Detention) are invoked to prevent custodial violence.
Supreme Court and High Court Rulings: Many cases have defined the scope and application of protections for juveniles in custodial settings, with severe consequences for violations.
Case Law on Custodial Violence Against Juveniles
Here’s a detailed analysis of five key cases addressing custodial violence against juveniles in India:
**Case 1: Vishal Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra (2018)
Facts:
A 16-year-old juvenile was held in a police station on suspicion of theft. During his detention, he was subjected to physical violence by the police, leading to serious injury.
The juvenile was tortured to extract a confession. He was beaten with rods, denied food, and subjected to mental abuse.
Legal Issues:
Whether the police officers were liable for custodial violence under Section 330 of the IPC (torture to extract confession) and Section 342 (wrongful confinement).
Whether custodial violence against juveniles violated his constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Court Decision:
The Bombay High Court found the police officers guilty of violating Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees protection from torture and inhuman treatment.
The officers were convicted under Section 330 of the IPC, and the state was ordered to pay compensation to the juvenile.
Key Principle:
Custodial torture of a juvenile, even when there is a suspicion of criminal activity, violates constitutional protections and attracts criminal liability for the officers involved.
**Case 2: Re-Inhuman Conditions in 14 Juvenile Homes (2014)
Facts:
The case arose from an investigation by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) into conditions at 14 juvenile homes in India.
In these homes, numerous incidents of custodial abuse were reported, including physical beatings, lack of adequate food and sanitation, and sexual violence against juvenile detainees.
Legal Issues:
Whether the administration of juvenile homes was violating the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and whether the violence constituted child abuse and forced confinement.
Whether the state officials responsible for the juvenile homes were criminally liable for failing to prevent or address custodial violence.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court intervened, directing the Ministry of Women and Child Development and the State Governments to ensure the immediate closure of homes with poor conditions.
The court held that the juvenile home authorities and caretakers were criminally liable for child abuse and physical violence and ordered an investigation into individual cases of custodial abuse.
Key Principle:
Institutional custodial violence, especially in juvenile homes, violates juvenile rights, and authorities are criminally liable for failing to prevent such violence.
**Case 3: DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts:
This case involved a writ petition by the human rights activist DK Basu, highlighting incidents of custodial deaths, torture, and violence by police, including against juveniles.
Basu filed the petition after reports emerged of several minors dying in police custody due to torture.
Legal Issues:
Whether custodial torture and deaths of juveniles violated the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the police officers could be prosecuted under Section 330 of the IPC and other relevant sections.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment, laying down guidelines to prevent custodial torture, including the requirement for proper documentation of arrests and the right to inform relatives.
The Court directed state police authorities to ensure that no juveniles are tortured in custody and ordered that any instance of custodial violence be promptly reported and investigated.
The State was held accountable for failing to prevent torture and custodial abuse.
Key Principle:
The right to protection against custodial violence is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and authorities must adhere to stringent procedural safeguards.
**Case 4: The Case of the Torture of Juveniles in Tihar Jail (2004)
Facts:
This case was a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by an NGO that exposed widespread abuse of juveniles held in the Tihar Jail, one of the largest prisons in India.
Juvenile detainees were found to be subjected to physical abuse, including beatings and sexual violence by prison authorities.
Legal Issues:
Whether such treatment violated the Juvenile Justice Act and the constitutional rights of juveniles under Articles 14 and 21.
Whether prison officials were criminally liable for violating the rights of juveniles.
Court Decision:
The Delhi High Court issued a strong ruling, holding that custodial violence against juveniles is unlawful and ordered a series of reforms within the prison system.
It directed authorities to ensure the safe treatment of juveniles and introduced guidelines for the separation of minors from adults in detention facilities.
The Court also ordered compensation for the victims of the abuse.
Key Principle:
Custodial abuse within adult facilities or juvenile homes can attract severe criminal liability, including prosecution of officials and monetary compensation for victims.
**Case 5: Nirbhaya Case (2012) – Juvenile Involved in Brutal Attack (Special Focus on Juvenile Justice)
Facts:
One of the key accused in the infamous Nirbhaya gang rape case was a juvenile at the time of the crime.
The juvenile was accused of playing an active role in the gang-rape and brutal assault of a 23-year-old woman on a moving bus in Delhi.
Following his conviction, there was significant debate regarding whether juveniles should be tried as adults for heinous crimes.
Legal Issues:
Whether the juvenile accused in the case should be prosecuted under adult criminal law for the crime, considering the severity of the act.
Whether custodial violence was inflicted on the juvenile during his detention and trial process.
Court Decision:
The Juvenile Justice Board held that the juvenile, despite his role in the crime, should be treated according to the Juvenile Justice Act, which meant he could not be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.
The juvenile was sentenced to 3 years in a reform home, the maximum sentence under juvenile law at the time.
During his detention, the case raised concerns about the treatment and rehabilitation of juveniles in custodial settings.
Key Principle:
Even juveniles accused of serious crimes should be protected from custodial violence and provided opportunities for rehabilitation, as mandated by the Juvenile Justice Act.
Key Takeaways from the Case Studies
Criminal liability for custodial violence: Police officers, juvenile home officials, and other custodial authorities can be criminally liable under Indian law if they engage in torture, physical abuse, or mistreatment of juveniles.
Human rights and constitutional protections: Custodial violence against juveniles violates their constitutional rights, especially under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
Guidelines for the prevention of abuse: The Supreme Court in various rulings (like DK Basu) has laid down specific guidelines for the protection of juveniles in custody, including proper documentation, the right to legal counsel, and prompt reporting of any custodial abuse.
Accountability and compensation: Courts have mandated compensation for victims of custodial violence and held the state accountable for lapses in the protection of juvenile detainees.
Importance of rehabilitation: In cases involving juveniles, the focus is not only on punishment but also on rehabilitation and reform, as emphasized in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
RELATED Blog
comments