Posted:
Delhi gangrape accused who was most brutal may go scot-free for being minor. Is it time to review Juvenile Justice Act?
While murder and rape charges have been slapped on five of the six people arrested in connection with the December 16 Delhi gangrape case, the juvenile accused, who was the most brutal of the lot, might just go scot-free under the garb of India's toothless Juvenile Justice Act.
The minor accused, who happened to be the cleaner of the bus used in the crime, would turn 18 in four months. However, he would get away with a maximum of three years of counselling at a reformation house even as the boy confessed to both sexual and physical assault on the 23-year-old victim and was consequently also identified in a test identification parade (TIP).
The law states that any offence committed by a person below 18 years of age is an act of innocence and the juvenile cannot be tried under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He would be exempted from prosecution and punishment in accordance with the United Nations convention on rights of a child.
Such cases are dealt by the Juvenile Justice Board and the accused are provided free legal aid.
A bone test on the alleged rapist has proved that he was below 18 years of age at the time of crime and he would attain adulthood in the course of trial.
Eight years ago the Juvenile Justice Act was amended and the age of a juvenile under the law was enhanced from 16 to 18 years.
The boy's involvement in such a heinous and brutal case raises questions whether the juvenile's brutal act should be considered an act of innocence as per law or whether law should be reviewed to reduce the juvenile age from 18 to 16.
In the United Kingdom, minors can be tried as adult in an adult court in exceptional cases. A murder in Liverpool in 1993 set a precedent. In France, juveniles can be sentenced if circumstances and delinquency justify it. In the United States, criminal majority age varies between 16 and 18 years.
The minor accused, who happened to be the cleaner of the bus used in the crime, would turn 18 in four months. However, he would get away with a maximum of three years of counselling at a reformation house even as the boy confessed to both sexual and physical assault on the 23-year-old victim and was consequently also identified in a test identification parade (TIP).
The law states that any offence committed by a person below 18 years of age is an act of innocence and the juvenile cannot be tried under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He would be exempted from prosecution and punishment in accordance with the United Nations convention on rights of a child.
Such cases are dealt by the Juvenile Justice Board and the accused are provided free legal aid.
A bone test on the alleged rapist has proved that he was below 18 years of age at the time of crime and he would attain adulthood in the course of trial.
Eight years ago the Juvenile Justice Act was amended and the age of a juvenile under the law was enhanced from 16 to 18 years.
The boy's involvement in such a heinous and brutal case raises questions whether the juvenile's brutal act should be considered an act of innocence as per law or whether law should be reviewed to reduce the juvenile age from 18 to 16.
In the United Kingdom, minors can be tried as adult in an adult court in exceptional cases. A murder in Liverpool in 1993 set a precedent. In France, juveniles can be sentenced if circumstances and delinquency justify it. In the United States, criminal majority age varies between 16 and 18 years.
comment:
p_commentcount