‘He may have deserved the severest punishment under the law’
The Supreme Court set free a man sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl after medical examination found he was a juvenile at the time of the crime.
The judgment by a Bench of Justices T.S. Thakur and R. Banumathi comes shortly after the apex court, in November 2014, had acquitted a 40-year-old murder convict in another case when he too had successfully claimed ‘juvenility.’
In its verdict dated January 8 this year, the Bench expressed its misgivings over letting loose a man found guilty of rape and murder of an “innocent young child.”
“The circumstances, in our opinion, form a complete chain and lead to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant was responsible for the offence of rape and murder of the hapless baby-girl,” Justice Thakur wrote.
“But for the protection available to him under the Juvenile Justice Act, the appellant may have deserved the severest punishment permissible under law,” Justice Thakur observed in the verdict.
Justice Thakur, however, noted that the only relief for the court was the “cold comfort” it drew from the fact that the man spent 14 years in jail.
Section 7 A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 provides that an accused can claim he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged crime during any stage of the case and before any court. If medical examination proved his claim right, the court had to treat him as a juvenile, no matter what his present age was.
Being treated a juvenile would mean that punishment, even for heinous offences like rape and murder, would be reduced to a round of advice, community service or a period of two years in a special home.
In the present case, the accused, who is deaf and dumb, was found guilty of picking up the seven-year-old victim while she was sleeping and then raping and murdering her in April 1998. He was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court in January 2004.
The Rajasthan High Court had confirmed the sentence.
In his appeal before the Supreme Court, the accused, in a fresh plea, said he was a juvenile in 1998. Medical examination proved that the accused was just over 17 years of age when he allegedly committed the crime. This left Justice Thakur’s Bench with no option but to let him go.
This is the second case in which the apex court has expressed its helplessness over the provisions of the juvenile law.
In November 2014 hearing, a Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra had found the juvenile law “far too liberal” and had questioned the legality of Section 7A.
Justice Dipak Misra, who led the Bench, had then asked in open court: “What is this? Somebody can claim juvenility even after final disposal of the case...”
The Supreme Court set free a man sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl after medical examination found he was a juvenile at the time of the crime.
The judgment by a Bench of Justices T.S. Thakur and R. Banumathi comes shortly after the apex court, in November 2014, had acquitted a 40-year-old murder convict in another case when he too had successfully claimed ‘juvenility.’
In its verdict dated January 8 this year, the Bench expressed its misgivings over letting loose a man found guilty of rape and murder of an “innocent young child.”
“The circumstances, in our opinion, form a complete chain and lead to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant was responsible for the offence of rape and murder of the hapless baby-girl,” Justice Thakur wrote.
“But for the protection available to him under the Juvenile Justice Act, the appellant may have deserved the severest punishment permissible under law,” Justice Thakur observed in the verdict.
Justice Thakur, however, noted that the only relief for the court was the “cold comfort” it drew from the fact that the man spent 14 years in jail.
Section 7 A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 provides that an accused can claim he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged crime during any stage of the case and before any court. If medical examination proved his claim right, the court had to treat him as a juvenile, no matter what his present age was.
Being treated a juvenile would mean that punishment, even for heinous offences like rape and murder, would be reduced to a round of advice, community service or a period of two years in a special home.
In the present case, the accused, who is deaf and dumb, was found guilty of picking up the seven-year-old victim while she was sleeping and then raping and murdering her in April 1998. He was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court in January 2004.
The Rajasthan High Court had confirmed the sentence.
In his appeal before the Supreme Court, the accused, in a fresh plea, said he was a juvenile in 1998. Medical examination proved that the accused was just over 17 years of age when he allegedly committed the crime. This left Justice Thakur’s Bench with no option but to let him go.
This is the second case in which the apex court has expressed its helplessness over the provisions of the juvenile law.
In November 2014 hearing, a Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra had found the juvenile law “far too liberal” and had questioned the legality of Section 7A.
Justice Dipak Misra, who led the Bench, had then asked in open court: “What is this? Somebody can claim juvenility even after final disposal of the case...”
Source - The Hindu
No comments:
Post a Comment