Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
TOKO RUNEL S/O LATE TOKO PEKHI – Petitioner
Versus
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM – Respondent
W.P. (Crl.) No. 24 of 2023
Decided On : 28-06-2024
JUVENILE JUSTICE - JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015 - Sections 4, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 23 - The court discussed the procedural requirements under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, emphasizing that the determination of juvenility must be conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and not by a Magistrate. The court found that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate exceeded its jurisdiction by making a determination of juvenility, which led to procedural improprieties. The court highlighted the importance of following the mandated procedures to ensure justice for both the accused and the victims, ultimately deciding that the orders in question were unsustainable and required a fresh enquiry by the JJB.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges the orders of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Juvenile Justice Board regarding the juvenility of a child accused in a murder case. The petitioner contends that the accused, allegedly a minor, was improperly declared as a child in conflict with law based on questionable birth documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acted beyond its jurisdiction by determining the juvenility of the accused without following the proper procedures outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act. The court emphasized that the JJB is the appropriate authority to make such determinations.
Issues: Whether the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had the jurisdiction to determine the juvenility of the accused and whether the procedures mandated by the Juvenile Justice Act were followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the determination of juvenility must be made by the Juvenile Justice Board as per Section 14 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and any determination made by a Magistrate in this regard is void and without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Juvenile Justice Board, directing the JJB to conduct a fresh enquiry into the juvenility of the accused within three months.
The description of treatment provided to juveniles in rehabilitation centres is generally based on principles and guidelines established within juvenile justice frameworks and child welfare policies. These principles emphasize the importance of a holistic approach that includes psychological counseling, educational and vocational training, behavioral therapy, and social skills development. The aim is to facilitate rehabilitation and reintegration into society in a manner that respects the juvenile’s dignity and rights (!) .
Such treatment programs are designed to address the underlying causes of delinquent behavior, provide mental health support, and promote positive development. The specific components and methods may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the individual needs of the juvenile, but the overarching goal remains consistent: to support the juvenile’s growth into a responsible and productive member of society (!) .
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Ms. S.G. Baruah learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Nath learned senior Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. NNB Choudhury learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, Mr. A Chandran learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 7 and Mr. D.K. Medhi learned counsel for respondent No. 8.
2. This writ petition arises out of Sessions case No. 50(NL)/2023, pending in the court of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur.
3. THE CHALLENGE:
4. The factual matrix leading to the passing of the orders impugned are recorded herein below:
II. During the course of investigation the investigating officer arrested three persons including the CICL.
III. On 23.12.2021 a bail application was preferred before the learned Addl. CJM, North Lakhimpur claiming that the accused (son of the respondent No. 8) was minor on the date of alleged offence. In support of such contention photocopy of birth certificate, Aadhar Card and SLC certificate of the CICL were annexed. Though the birth certificate was in original, but the Magistrate doubted the genuineness of the birth certificate as the same did not contain any QR code or bar code and therefore, directed an enquiry to find out the genuineness of the birth certificate. A notice was issued to the District Register of Birth and Death, Itanagar, Naharlagun to depute a staff of his office to appear before the Magistrate on the next date fixed.
IV. Subsequently on 10.01.2022, the Revenue Officer of the Office of the Municipal Corporation Itanagar, appeared before the court and produced one original birth registrar and also produced a communication addressed to the court by the Statistical Officer of the Itanagar Municipal Corporation. After perusal of the aforesaid documents, the learned Magistrate opined that birth certificates are not doubtful and also concluded that the accused son of the respondent No. 8 had not attained the age of 18 years and accordingly directed the IO of the case to produce CICL before the JJB, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur.
V. In terms of the aforesaid order, on 11.01.2022, the records were produced before the learned JJB and the learned JJB declined to grant zimma of the CICL to the parent and directed the IO for investigation and to submit the report along with medical report and fixed the next date on 21.01.2022. The JJB recorded that the age of CICL is 17 years 7 months 8 days on the basis of the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
VI. Subsequently, by an order dated 17.01.2022 the custody of the CICL was handed over to the respondent No. 8.
VII. It is important to note that on 25.05.2022 petition No. 950 was filed by the father of the deceased/informant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in GR Case No. 4465/2021, through th
The determination of juvenility in cases involving children in conflict with law must be conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, and any contrary determination by a Magistrate is without jurisdictio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure for determining juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, including the specific inquiry proc....
The lack of compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards in juvenile trials invalidates the conviction, necessitating adherence to due process under the Juvenile Justice Act.
The proceedings against a Child in Conflict with Law must comply strictly with statutory inquiry requirements for fair trial rights, or they may be quashed due to procedural violations.
The court must conduct a comprehensive enquiry to determine age when evidence is contradictory, ensuring adherence to the Juvenile Justice Act's guidelines for juvenile claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of documentary evidence, such as school certificates, in determining juvenility, and the need for a careful and conscious approach....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
