Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 3181
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ.
Durga - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2019
Decided On : 15-04-2019
Ramesh Purohit, Adv., J.P.S. Choudhary, Adv.
The court established that juveniles must be afforded due process and protections under the Juvenile Justice Act, including proper assessment and legal representation.
Headnote:
Juvenile - Murder - Juvenile Justice Act - Sections 15, 19, 107(2) - The court found that the juvenile's trial as an adult was improper due to procedural violations, lack of legal representation, and failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice, leading to the acquittal of the juvenile.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a juvenile, was convicted for murdering her husband after a history of domestic abuse. The case was transferred to adult court without proper assessment of her mental capacity or legal representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the juvenile justice procedures were not followed, including the lack of a female officer in the investigation and failure to provide legal assistance, which invalidated the trial.
Issues: Whether the juvenile was properly assessed and tried as an adult under the Juvenile Justice Act, and if her fundamental rights were violated during the investigation and trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the juvenile's trial as an adult was unjustified due to procedural irregularities and violations of her rights, emphasizing the need for adherence to juvenile justice protocols.
Result: The appeal is accepted, the conviction is overturned, and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Mehta, J. - The appellant Smt. Durga (date of birth 03.08.1998) has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, in Sessions Case No.115/2016:
| Offences | Sentences | Fine | Fine Default sentences |
| Under Section 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/- | Six Months' additional simple Imprisonment |
2. Being Aggrieved Of Her Conviction And Sentences, The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
3. Facts in brief are that the complainant Unkar (PW-3) lodged a written report (Ex.P/3) at the Police Station Suhagpura on 16.05.2016 alleging inter alia that on the previous evening i.e. on 15.05.2016, his son Bherulal and his daughter-in-law Durga quarelled with each other because Durga had not prepared food. They were in a habit of fighting with each other on small issues. The informant took dinner and after pacifying the spouses, he went towards the naala for easing himself. Thereafter, he went to meet Heera. He returned home at 11 o' clock. Thinking that the spouses would have gone to sleep in their room, he put up a cot outside the house and went to sleep. In the night at about 12 o' clock, he again heard the husband and wife quarelling with each other upon which, he woke up and saw Durga having an axe in her hand with which, she had assaulted his son Bherulal on his neck. Bherulal was lying in the Baramada in a bleeding condition. Upon seeing Unkar, Durga threw the axe down and went away. He checked his son for sign of life but found that he had passed away. He alleged that his daughter-in-law Smt. Durga had killed Bherulal by inflicting an axe blow on his neck. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.51/2016 was registered at the Police Station Suhagpura and investigation commenced. The appellant herein was arrested. Her date of birth as entered in the school record was 03.08.1998 and thus, being a juvenile, she was presented before the Principal, Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh.
4. It may be stated here that despite the appellant, being a 'female' child in conflict with law, at no stage of the case, was any female police officer associated with the investiation.
5. Be That As It May. After Concluding The Formalities Of investigation, the investigating officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the appellant before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh on 27.06.2016 for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
6. Since the child was arrainged for a heinous offence as defined under Section 2, the Juvenile Justice Board decided to hold an enquiry under Section 15 of the The Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Juvenile Justice Act') to consider whether the child should be tried as an adult. After the statements of two witnesses had been recorded in the purported inquiry under Section 15 of the Act of 2015, the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board proceeded to pass an order dated 22.08.2016 observing that the child in conflict with law appeared to be posessed of the mental and physical capability to commit a henious offence and that she was in a position to understand the consequences of her act and accordingly directed that the child should be subjected to medical examination through a psychiatrist. The child was sent to the MBH Hospital, Udaipur wherein, she was admitted in the Psychiatry Ward. The Medical Board comprising of three Professors of which, one was from the psychiatry department, carried out the mental and physical assessment of the child and issued its report dated 30.08.2016 in the following terms:
"Members of the board examined her after admission in psychiatry ward from 27th Aug to 30th Aug 2016 vide indoor reg. no.20588. On mental state examination she was found to be cooperative and communicative, no ex
