HYDERABAD: Four juveniles whom the police had arraigned as accused in the Jubilee Hills gangrape case will be tried as adults while the fifth, son of a Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen MLA, will face trial as a juvenile.
A decision to this effect was taken on Friday by G. Radhika, principal magistrate of the Juvenile Board, after conducting a preliminary assessment of the physical and mental ability of the five children in conflict with law (CCL) to commit the offence and their knowledge of consequences of committing the crime.
However, in a startling development, board member Ayesha Fatima, in her report opined “the CCL may have been lured by the welcoming approach of the victim and that they do not have legal education and hence unable to understand the legal consequences.”
The principal magistrate differed with Fatima’s observation and said in her order, “Whether the victim lured the CCLs or not is an issue of fact and cannot be determined at this stage.” She pointed out, “This was only an inquiry to assess the physical and mental ability of the CCL to assess whether they understand the consequences or not.”
With regard to the fifth juvenile, the magistrate opined that no preliminary assessment was conducted as the ‘offences alleged against him are not heinous.’
Opposition parties have been accusing the state government and the police of protecting the MLA’s son by making light of his involvement in the crime and charging him with a less heinous crime. The police from the beginning took a stand that the legislator’s son had got down from the car before the victim was gangraped.
The board took the assistance of a professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Mental Health who remained unidentified. Following the due process, the principal magistrate, board member and the psychiatry professor interacted separately with each CCL and submitted their respective reports.
The principal magistrate found during her interaction that all the four were from rich backgrounds and enjoy cordial relations with their parents and siblings. One even wanted to do a barrister course in London, while another dreamt of studying architecture in Italy. No one consumes alcohol while one said that he was a casual smoker.
The psychiatry professor opined that the CCL have knowledge about consequences of the offence. The principal magistrate in her concluding remarks pointed out that the CCL were not under the influence of alcohol or other substances. There were no compelling circumstances in which they allegedly committed the offence.
“Hence I am of the opinion that the CCLs should be tried as adults having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged against them.”
She ordered the transfer of the case to the children’s court.
…
