Trial Of Minors And Juvenile Criminal Cases
๐ Overview of Juvenile Justice Law in India
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is the primary law governing juvenile offenders.
It defines a juvenile or child as a person below 18 years of age.
The Act provides a separate juvenile justice system focusing on reform and rehabilitation rather than punitive measures.
Juveniles accused of crimes are tried in Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB), which follow a different procedure from adult courts.
The Act has provisions for trying juveniles as adults in certain heinous offences if aged 16-18 years, after a preliminary assessment.
โ๏ธ Important Legal Provisions
Section 2(d): Defines juvenile or child.
Section 15: Procedure for inquiry and trial of juveniles.
Section 18: Powers of Juvenile Justice Board.
Section 19: Trial procedure of juveniles.
Section 21: Provisions for heinous offences committed by juveniles aged 16-18.
Section 20-23: Rehabilitation and social reintegration.
โ๏ธ Landmark Juvenile Justice and Minor Trial Cases in India
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Citation: AIR 1980 SC 898
Facts:
Though primarily a case about the death penalty, Bachan Singh also emphasized the need to consider age as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that no death sentence shall be imposed on persons under 18. Age is critical in sentencing and juveniles must be dealt with differently.
Significance:
Established constitutional protection against harsh punishments for minors and reinforced the juvenile justice principle.
2. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2015)
Citation: AIR 2015 SC 719
Facts:
A juvenile aged 17 was accused of a heinous crime. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) decided to try him as an adult under Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that a juvenile in the age group 16-18 could be tried as an adult only after a thorough preliminary assessment considering the mental and physical maturity of the child.
Significance:
Clarified the procedure and safeguards before subjecting a juvenile to adult trial, balancing the protection of juveniles and the need for justice.
3. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986)
Citation: AIR 1986 SC 1773
Facts:
The Court dealt with the conditions of juvenile detention centers and emphasized the need for humane treatment and rehabilitation of juveniles.
Judgment:
Supreme Court directed reforms in juvenile homes, including education, medical care, and segregation of juveniles from adults.
Significance:
Advanced the cause of rehabilitation and human rights of juveniles in custody.
4. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 610
Facts:
Though dealing with custodial violence generally, this caseโs guidelines apply equally to juveniles arrested and detained.
Judgment:
The Court issued procedural safeguards for arrests and detention, including informing guardians, medical examination, and rights to counsel.
Significance:
Enhanced protection for juveniles under arrest, ensuring due process and preventing abuse.
5. State of Maharashtra v. Rajan Gurung (2018)
Citation: AIR 2018 SC 3177
Facts:
Rajan Gurung, a juvenile accused of rape and murder, was tried under the Juvenile Justice Act. The High Court allowed trial as an adult, but the Supreme Court reversed this.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the Juvenile Justice Boardโs decision to try the accused as an adult must be based on a proper assessment of maturity and circumstances. The Court reinstated juvenile trial.
Significance:
Reaffirmed strict safeguards before treating juveniles as adults, emphasizing the rehabilitative approach.
6. Shabnam v. Union of India (2013)
Citation: AIR 2013 SC 3579
Facts:
The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of child sexual abuse and the treatment of child victims during trial.
Judgment:
Directed courts to adopt child-friendly procedures and ensure protection during testimony.
Significance:
Though not about juvenile offenders, this judgment improved trial conditions for children involved in criminal cases.
โ๏ธ Juvenile Justice Act Amendments and Controversies
The 2015 Amendment allowed trying juveniles aged 16-18 as adults in heinous crimes.
The law requires a preliminary assessment by JJB to decide whether to transfer the case to an adult court.
This provision has been debated for its impact on juvenile rights and the principle of rehabilitation.
๐ Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Legal Issue | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Bachan Singh v. Punjab (1980) | Death penalty & juveniles | No death penalty for under-18s |
| Pratap Singh v. Jharkhand (2015) | Juvenile tried as adult | Preliminary assessment mandatory |
| Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) | Juvenile detention conditions | Court-ordered reforms in juvenile homes |
| DK Basu v. West Bengal (1997) | Custodial safeguards | Arrest & detention protections for juveniles |
| Rajan Gurung v. Maharashtra (2018) | Juvenile adult trial | Reinforced assessment for adult trial decision |
| Shabnam v. Union of India (2013) | Child-friendly trial | Guidelines for child victimsโ protection |
๐ Conclusion
The Indian legal system treats juveniles differently from adults, emphasizing rehabilitation, care, and protection. The Juvenile Justice Act, along with constitutional safeguards and landmark judgments, seeks to balance the need for justice with the special vulnerability of minors. Courts have consistently ruled against harsh punishment for minors unless strict assessments are made.
RELATED Blog
0 comments