HC quashes order detaining teen boy in juvenile home

The Madras High Court has set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board in Tiruvallur detaining a 15-year-old boy under the POCSO Act in a juvenile home for three years.

''The irresponsible behaviour on the part of the petitioner/minor (boy) and the victim girl, who hail from the lower strata of the society, is nothing but a mirror image of the lacuna of the society in taking sufficient care for others,'' Justice A D Jagadish Chandira said.

The judge was allowing a revision petition from the mother of Kumar (name changed) challenging the orders of the Board dated March, 17, 2020 sending him to the juvenile home for three years and ordering his immediate release, on April 29.

The charge against the boy, who was 15 years at the time, had sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old girl and impregnated her. Following a complaint from the girl's side, Kumar was arrested and sent to the juvenile home.

His mother preferred the present revision petition.

Allowing the petition, the judge observed that the age of the girl, which is the basis for attracting the offence punishable under the provisions of POCSO Act, has not been properly proven.

The inquiry contemplated under the Juvenile Justice Act has not been concluded within the stipulated time. Justice has been denied to the petitioner/child in conflict in law.

''Therefore, it would be unsafe to concur with the Juvenile Justice Board on its finding that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under the provisions of POCSO Act,'' the judge said.

Unfortunately, the judge added that the suspicion surrounding the age of the victim girl has not been probed into by the Juvenile Justice Board in a manner known to law and had it been proved that she was above 18 on the date of occurrence, the scenario would have been vice versa.

Even if she was below 18 years on the date of occurrence, the petitioner being a minor boy/child in conflict with law, the procedures contemplated under the Juvenile Justice Act ought to have been adopted before passing any order of detention and that too is supposed to be the last resort after making a reasonable inquiry, as specifically mentioned in sub-clause (xii) of Section 3 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

However, in the case on hand, no such procedure appears to have been followed properly and merely by relying on the statement of the petitioner/minor alleged to have been given on his own volition and without going into its genuineness, a hazy order of detention came to be passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in a hasty manner, which certainly warrants interference, the judge added ''In the result, the order of detention passed in March 2020 by the Juvenile Justice Board in Tiruvallur is set aside. The petitioner is set at liberty forthwith. Bail bond executed, if any, shall stand cancelled,'' the judge said.