Gurgaon School Murder: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decision To Try Juvenile As Adult

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram's decision to try a child in conflict with law as an adult in the 2017 murder case of a Gurgaon school student.

Justice Anoop Chitkara said that the order is absolutely in tune with the directions of the Supreme Court and has been passed in the light of provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and calls for "no interference".

"The final opinion of the Board that minor accused (child-in-conflict with law) had sufficient ability to understand the consequences of the offence is based on detailed assessment of all material facts and procedures followed in accordance with the rules. I do not find any illegality in the said order and also do not find any deviation from the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court," said the court. 

The court was hearing the criminal revision against the Principal Magistrate’s order passed in 2022 to try him as an adult. The order was later upheld by the Appellate Court.

The law mandates that when a heinous crime is alleged against a juvenile who is above 16 years old and below 18 years, a preliminary assessment with regard to the child’s mental and physical capacity to commit such an offence and their ability to understand its consequences must be conducted by the JJ board to determine whether he may be tried as an adult.

In the present case, the juvenile was around 16 years and 5 months at the time of alleged murder therefore the procedure of assessment was followed. In 2017, the JJB decided to treat him as adult. The minor accused had challenged the order before the Sessions Court which had affirmed the same.

Thereafter, he had challenged both the orders before the High Court and in 2018, the High Court set aside the order passed by Principal Magistrate as well as the Children’s Court and remanded the matter to the Board for afresh consideration.

In 2018, the order of the High Court to reconsider the matter afresh was challenged by the father of the deceased as well as CBI before the Apex Court.

In 2022, the Supreme Court said it may not agree with the reasoning given by the High Court on all counts and also the direction given for conducting further tests. However, it upheld "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 only liberty given to the Board is to obtain assistance of an experienced physiologist or a psycho social worker or other expert. In the present case, the only assistance taken is to get the mental IQ of the child. Beyond that, regarding the ability to understand the consequences and also the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed, no report was called for from any psychologist,” the apex court said in the ruling. 

Following the Apex Court’s order, Juvenile Justice Board said that the minor accused possessed mental as well as physical capacity to commit the alleged offence and also had ability to understand its circumstances and its consequences and therefore he should be tried as an adult.

In September 2022, PGIMS Rohtak constituted the board and it opined that there is no valid test which can be administered to the child-in-conflict with law which can retrospectively assess mental capacity as directed by the Board.

The board said there was no evidence of any physical, mental illness or intellectual impairment.

Justice Chitkara noted that The Social Investigation Report pointed out that the minor accused was aggressive, had short temper and lacked stability but all the stages had been developed recently as it transpired during the interaction with the Board.

"During the personal interaction with the Board, they also found that the relations of the minor’s parents were cordial and they would rarely enter into quarrel. As per the clinical assessment, nothing came to suggest that the child-in- conflict with law was suffering from any parental neglect or poor family supervision. Rather the findings pointed out that he belonged to upper socio-economic strata and had assess to all the basic necessities. There was no evidence that because of the minor being an under performer in academics his parents have remanded him on this count," said the court.

Directing to expedite the trial, the court rejected the criminal revision application.

Case Title: Bholu, a ‘Juvinile in conflict with law’ v.CBI

Appearance: R.S. Khosla, Senior Advocate with Sarvesh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

R.S. Dhaliwal, Rajeev Anand, Advocate, for the respondent-CBI

Click Here To Read/Download Order