Boy's death in Gurugram school: SC says issue of juvenility of accused be examined afresh

Nearly five years after the murder of a child at a Gurugram private school, the Supreme Court Wednesday said the juvenile accused in the 2017 case should be examined afresh to decide whether he be prosecuted as an adult or not for the alleged crime.

''The fate of the child in conflict with law should not be taken without conducting a meticulous psychological evaluation,'' the apex court said while dismissing the appeal filed by the father of the deceased child challenging the October 11, 2018 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The high court had set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the Children's court which said the 16-year-old student, accused of killing the child over a year ago, will be treated as an adult during the trial. The top court agreed with the finding of the High Court that further assessment of the accused ought to have been carried out once the psychologist had recommended so and had also suggested the name of the institute. The victim's father expressed dissatisfaction over the verdict saying the family has come back to the same situation where it was in 2018. The victim's body, with the throat slit, was found in the washroom of the school in the Bhondsi area in Gurgaon.

The CBI had alleged that the teenager murdered the student on September 8, 2017, in a bid to get the examinations postponed and a scheduled parent-teacher meeting cancelled.

The JJB in December 2017 held that the teenager accused of killing will be tried as an adult based on preliminary assessments conducted on his mental and physical capacity.

It had opined that the teenager ''had sufficient mental and physical capacity to commit the offence.'' An apex court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath Wednesday said that the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children's court were of the view that the mental capacity and the ability to understand the consequences of the offence were one and the same. ''That is to say that if the child had the mental capacity to commit the offence, then he automatically had the capacity to understand the consequences of the offence. This, in our considered opinion, is a grave error committed by them,'' it said. It said the process of taking a decision on which the fate of the child in conflict with law precariously rests, should not be taken without conducting a meticulous psychological evaluation.

''We have no hesitation in agreeing with 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 bench said. Barun Chandra Thakur, the father of the deceased boy, said ''It's very difficult for a middle-class family to fight for so long for justice. Today again we came back to the situation where we were in the earlier months of 2018. It seems difficult to get speedy justice for a 7-year-old innocent kid and society.'' Advocate Sushil Tekriwal, the lawyer for the victim's family, said according to the Juvenile Justice Act, the maximum tenure of punishment that can be given to juvenile offenders is three years and this punishment is valid for heinous crimes also.

He said in a case where the juvenile under a judicial order is treated as an adult offender in a heinous offence, the law states that no child in conflict with the law shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without the possibility of release. In its 95-page order, the apex court observed that children may be geared towards more instant gratification and not be able to deeply understand the long-term consequences of their actions, they are also more likely to be influenced by emotion rather than reason.

''Research shows that young people do know risks to themselves. Despite this knowledge, adolescents engage in riskier behaviour than adults (such as drug and alcohol use, unsafe sexual activity, dangerous driving, and/or delinquent behaviour). While they do consider risks cognitively (by weighing up the potential risks and rewards of a particular act), their decisions/actions may be more heavily influenced by social (e.g. peer influences) and/or emotional (e.g. impulsive) tendencies.

''In addition, the lack of experience coupled with the child's limited ability to deeply understand the long-term consequences of their actions can lead to impulsive/reckless decision making,'' the bench said.

It held that the assessment regarding the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to be committed is an attribute that could have many factors to be considered before such an assessment could be made. ''There could be a number of reasons for a person to commit a crime. The world acknowledges that children in conflict with the law should be treated differently than adults in conflict with the law. The reason is that the mind of the child has not attained maturity and it is still developing. ''Therefore, the child should be tested on different parameters and should be given an opportunity of being brought into the mainstream if, during his juvenility, has acted in conflict with the law,'' the bench said It said child psychology is a specialised branch of development psychology, its genesis is based on the premise that children and adults have different thought processes.PTI PKS SJK RKS RKS