Criminal Antecedents, Facebook Posts Reveal Disrespect For Law: MP High Court Directs For Juvenile To Be Tried By Children's Court

The single judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar held that any leniency shown to the accused will only 'promote his demeanour' as it would tantamount to 'misplaced sympathy'.

“…the application filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 is hereby allowed and it is directed that the respondent No.3 be tried before the Children's Court as provided under Section 18(3) of the Act of 2015”, the bench sitting at Indore noted while allowing the criminal revision against the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and Additional Sessions Judge in 2019 and 2022 respectively.

The single bench observed that the accused-respondent no.3 was 16 years and 11 months old at the time of alleged incident in which he was complicit in the murder of the complainant's brother. References were made to the reports furnished by the Probationary Officer and the medical report, which is part of the preliminary report prepared by Juvenile Justice Board, in 2019. Both these reports found the accused to be mentally capable and competent to commit the alleged heinous offence.

After analysing the criminal history of accused, the court found that he had been arraigned in a criminal case for offences including Section 354 IPC [Section 74 of BNS] and those under the POCSO Act.

“…Thus, admittedly, the respondent No.3 was in a bad company and has indulged in criminal activities since he was around 15 years old when he committed an offence u/s.354 of IPC and also under POCSO Act for which he has also spent around twenty days in the Children's home/juvenile home”, the court emphasized.

About the posts made by the accused on the social media platform, the court felt that it confirmed the juvenile's 'lack of respect for law'.

“…It is also apparent from the Facebook posts that the respondent No.3 who wants to dominate the other likeminded person of his age, as he has even referred to Section 302 in the Facebook post dated 02.05.2019”, the court added.

The court added that Juvenile Justice Board shouldn't have discarded the copies of social media posts filed before it while rejecting the application for trial before Children's Court. The District Appellate Court had also affirmed the order of JJB by granting the juvenile another chance to correct himself.

“…it ought to have taken into consideration the said conduct of the respondent no.3, coupled with the fact that a case u/s.354 of IPC, i.e., outraging the modesty of a woman was also registered against him a year ago”, the court concluded.

Adv. Lakhan Singh Panwar appeared for the petitioner. Government Advocate Mukesh Sharma represented the State.

Case Title: Saurabh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Case No: Criminal Revision No. 3086 of 2022

Citation: 2024 Live Law (MP) 149

Click Here To Read/Download Order