By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Father of a seven-year-old child, who was murdered at a private school in Haryana’s Gurugram district in 2017, Wednesday expressed dissatisfaction over the Supreme Court verdict which said the accused juvenile be examined afresh to ascertain whether he should be tried as an adult or not for the alleged crime.
Barun Chandra Thakur, the father of the deceased boy, said the family has come back to the same situation where it was in 2018.
“It’s very difficult for a middle-class family to fight for so long for justice. Today again we came back to the situation where we were in the earlier months of 2018. It seems difficult to get speedy justice for a 7-year-old innocent kid and society.”
“Now we have come to know that our justice delivery system is very complicated. Our fight for justice got prolonged and became more difficult but still, we will continue to fight for justice,” Thakur told PTI.
The top court said the juvenile accused in the 2017 murder should be examined afresh to ascertain whether he should be tried as an adult, saying “the fate of the child in conflict with law should not be taken without conducting a meticulous psychological evaluation.”
The top court agreed with the finding of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that further assessment of the accused ought to have been carried out once the psychologist had recommended so and had also suggested the name of the institute.
A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath dismissed the appeals filed by the father of the deceased child challenging the October 11, 2018 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Nearly five years after the murder of a child at a Gurugram private school, the Supreme Court Wednesday said the juvenile accused in the 2017 case should be examined afresh to decide whether he be prosecuted as an adult, saying “the fate of the child in conflict with law should not be taken without conducting a meticulous psychological evaluation.”
The top court agreed with the finding of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that further assessment of the accused ought to have been carried out once the psychologist had recommended so and had also suggested the name of the institute.
A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath dismissed the appeals filed by the father of the deceased child challenging the October 11, 2018 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Juvenile Justice Board in December 2017 held that the teenager accused of killing will be tried as an adult based on preliminary assessments conducted on his mental and physical capacity.
The Board had opined that the teenager “had sufficient mental and physical capacity to commit the offence.”
The top court said that the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children’s court were of the view that the mental capacity and the ability to understand the consequences of the offence were one and the same.
“That is to say that if the child had the mental capacity to commit the offence, then he automatically had the capacity to understand the consequences of the offence. This, in our considered opinion, is a grave error committed by them,” the bench said.
It said the process of taking a decision on which the fate of the child in conflict with law precariously rests, should not be taken without conducting a meticulous psychological evaluation.
“We have no hesitation in agreeing with the ultimate result of the High Court in remanding the matter for a fresh consideration after rectifying the errors on lack of adequate opportunity,” the bench said.
Observing that children may be geared towards more instant gratification and not be able to deeply understand the long-term consequences of their actions, the top court said they are also more likely to be influenced by emotion rather than reason.
“Research shows that young people do know risks to themselves. Despite this knowledge, adolescents engage in riskier behaviour than adults (such as drug and alcohol use, unsafe sexual activity, dangerous driving, and/or delinquent behaviour). While they do consider risks cognitively (by weighing up the potential risks and rewards of a particular act), their decisions/actions may be more heavily influenced by social (e.g.peer influences) and/or emotional (e.g.impulsive) tendencies.”
“In addition, the lack of experience coupled with the child’s limited ability to deeply understand the long-term consequences of their actions can lead to impulsive/reckless decision making,” the bench said.
The apex court held that the assessment regarding the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to be committed is an attribute that could have many factors to be considered before such an assessment could be made.
“There could be a number of reasons for a person to commit a crime. The world acknowledges that children in conflict with the law should be treated differently than adults in conflict with the law. The reason is that the mind of the child has not attained maturity and it is still developing.”
“Therefore, the child should be tested on different parameters and should be given an opportunity of being brought into the mainstream if, during his juvenility, has acted in conflict with the law,” the bench said in its 95-page order.
It said that child psychology is a specialised branch of development psychology, its genesis is based on the premise that children and adults have a different thought process.
The apex court said it was of the view that where the Board is not comprised of a practising professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the Board would be obliged to take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts.
“However, in case the Board comprises of at least one such member, who has been a practising professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the Board may take such assistance as may be considered proper by it; and in case the Board chooses not to take such assistance, it would be required of the Board to state specific reasons therefor,” the bench said.
The top court said the task of preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act, 2015 is a delicate task with the requirement of expertise and has its implications as regards the trial of the case.
“In this view of the matter, it appears expedient that appropriate and specific guidelines in this regard are put in place.
Without much elaboration, we leave it open for the Central Government and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to consider issuing guidelines or directions in this regard which may assist and facilitate the Board in making the preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015,” the bench said.
The high court had set aside a lower court order which said the 16-year-old student, accused of killing the child over a year ago, will be treated as an adult during the trial.
The CBI, had alleged that the teenager had murdered the student on September 8, 2017, in a bid to get the examinations postponed and a scheduled parent-teacher meeting cancelled.
