Committal Proceedings are invalid

It is humbly submitted that the committal proceedings are not valid. Under the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 the Juvenile Justice Board can transfer the case to the Children’s
Court after preliminary assessment but in the present case, it is seen that there was no
children’s court and so the matter was referred to the Sessions’ court. It is butnatural that
Sessions’ Court would follow the procedure under Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial of
the case of juvenile-in-conflict with law. The very basic aim and object of Juvenile Justice
Act breaks in such case that child friendly approach should be made while dealing with the
case. The Sessions’ Court conducts the trial in open court instead special children room. So it
is bad in law. Sessions’ Court would treat the juvenile in conflict with law as juvenile
offender which the word itself is abolished by Juvenile Justice Act of 2015. Under the
Cr.P.C., there is strict approach for dealing while the nature of Juvenile Justice Act is liberal
and in favour of child as welfare statute. By committing the matter to the Sessions’ Court, the
juvenile accused would become regular offender. So, it is inappropriate.

It is also seen that Juvenile Justice Board has also not properly conducted preliminary
assessment of the juvenile accused. Before determining whether the case fit for commit to
Court, various aspects are to be considered. It is not only the age which is to be considered by
the Board with the assistance of psychologists and psychiatrists but the conditions &
background of the juvenile is also required to be considered which is not done in the present
case of Amar, Akbar, Anthony and Surjeet. They have grown up in tough conditions in the
Saturn district of South Soman. While Amar and Anthony have never known their fathers,
Akbar comes from an abusive household, where he was always beaten up by a drunken
father. Surjeet is an orphan who had grown up on the streets, fighting for each meal since the
day he was 4, when he was abandoned by his parents. Slowly they met, spent time together,
lead to petty offences by being “Bachcha Gang” as they were uneducated and suffeed
juveniles.

These juveniles have been deprived of love, care, shelter and education and they are
belonging to the backward/lower middle/middle class family. As by this atmosphere, any
juvenile may be lead to be in bad group or started to commit crime in early stage of life. As
the juvenile has 16-18 years of age, it should not mean that he should be committed for trial
by the court. It is the discretion of the board to decide such, looking to many aspects.

In Board, there is composition of Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan

Magistrate being judicial officer and other experts having knowledge in various field like law
or sociology under section 4 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. But it is pertinent to note that
for the purpose of conducting the preliminary inquiry regarding determination to commit the
case for trial before the court in case of commission of heinous crime, there should be
minimum experience of 10 years by the judicial officer or competent authority and only such
officers should be qualified for determining such, who have previously conducted trial of
case in heinous crimes. As judicial magistrate first class has power of punishment for
maximum 3 years, he would not have dealt the contested cases and so, proper ascertainment
may not be possible which can be led to bias which is violative of principles of natural justice
and article 14 and 21 of the constitution. So, it is humble request to please direct the
legislature to form proper provision for determination grounds for preliminary assessment
and amend the qualification of board.

KRISHNAN Vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2010

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —
Section 34, 201, 302, 364, 365 —Kidnapping and murder—Common intention—
Conviction—Circumstantial evidence—Conviction cannot be based only on
circumstance of last seen together with deceased—There is unexplained delay of six
days in lodging FIR—Testimony of an accomplice cannot be used against another
accused—There is no other positive material on record to show that deceased was last
seen together with accused and intervening period of seven days there was nobody in
contact with deceased—In absence of any other links in chain of circumstantial
evidence, appellant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of “last seen together” even if
version of prosecution witness in this regard is believed—Conviction and sentence set
aside—Appeals allowed.

Retired Judge of Delhi High Court, Justice R.S. Sodhi said that “we are a civilized nation and
if we become barbaric by twisting our own laws, then the enemy will succeed in destroying
our social structure. We should not allow that but we must condemn this move of sending
children to fight their war.”