Scribd
Upload
11 views3 pages

FINAL JUDGEMENT-WPS Office

Mgt

Uploaded by

soundhryac2003
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
11 views3 pages

FINAL JUDGEMENT-WPS Office

Mgt

Uploaded by

soundhryac2003
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

JUDGEMENT

It's time for moving on to the Judgement....

We have heard both the counsel for appellant and respond. The court has examined in detail the

submissions were submitted by both the parties.


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2020

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7678 of 2019)

Sumati Mishra …APPELLANT(S)

Versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

Bench:

Alkesh, Anand

Presents:

1. Mr. Sreehari.P, Mr. Jithin Thampi, council for petitioner in writ petition NO. 1542/2024

2. Attorney General of the state, Ms.Niranjana and Mrs. Soundharya for the State of Raga

Prior History: From the judgement and order dated 26/8/2024 of the supreme cour
THE ISSUES DISCUSSED HERE ARE

1: Whether the petition is maintainable or not

The petition filed is maintainable

2.WHETHER THE DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW WAS FOLLOWED OR NOT

issue before this Hon'ble Court is whether the due procedure of law was followed in determining that
the appellant, a juvenile aged 17 years and 4 days at the time of the incident, should be tried as an adult
for a heinous offence under Section 105 of the BNS Act.

Under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, juveniles aged 16–18 years accused of heinous
offences may be tried as adults if the JJB determines that the child has the mental and physical capacity
to commit the offence, understands its consequences, and the circumstances warrant such trial.It is
proved that the JJB conducted an inquiry as mandated under Section 15 of the Act, taking into account
the appellant’s age, mental capacity, and the gravity of the offence. Expert opinions regarding the
appellant's understanding of the consequences of his actions were considered. The Board’s decision to
classify the offence as heinous and refer the appellant for trial as an adult was based on these
findings.The High Court found no procedural irregularity or violation of the appellant’s rights.Upon
examination of the records and arguments, this Court finds that the due procedure of law was followed
at every stage of the proceedings. The Juvenile Justice Board and the Hon'ble High Court acted within
the framework of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

The appellant’s claim that the decision to try him as an adult was procedurally flawed is without merit.
The assessment of his mental and physical capacity, as well as the consideration of the heinous nature
of the offence, was conducted in accordance with the law.

Kusum Lata v. State of Rajasthan (2017): The Rajasthan High Court dealt with a situation where the JJB
conducted a preliminary assessment and decided to try a juvenile as an adult for a heinous crime. The
Court upheld the JJB's decision, noting that the Board had meticulously followed the procedure laid
down under Sections 15 and 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, thereby ensuring that the juvenile's rights
were protected while also considering the gravity of the offense.

3.Whether the act of the juvenile accused constitutes murder or culpable homicide not amounting to
murder?

The issue before this Hon'ble Court is whether the act of the juvenile accused constitutes murder under
Section 105 of the BNS Act or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.In the present case, there is
no evidence that the juvenile intended to cause the death of the victim or had any animus toward him.
But,the act of driving a vehicle at 80 km/h in a residential area suggests that the juvenile had knowledge
of the likely consequences of such reckless behavior. This knowledge aligns more closely with the
elements of culpable homicide not amounting to murder

State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi (2015)

The Supreme Court held that rash and negligent driving resulting in death usually falls under culpable
homicide not amounting to murder unless there is clear evidence of intention to kill.

Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012)

The Court emphasized that reckless driving with knowledge of likely fatal consequences may attract
culpable homicide charges but not murder.

conscience and religion. The State's actions are not in conformity with the

JUDGMENT OF PRESIDING OFFICER

The Court finds that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the Hon'ble High Court acted in compliance with
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The JJB conducted a thorough inquiry
under Section 15 of the Act, assessing the juvenile's mental and physical capacity to commit the offense,
his ability to understand the consequences, and the circumstances of the case.

The Court observes that while the juvenile’s actions were reckless and in gross violation of road safety
norms, there is no evidence of intent to cause death or grievous harm to the victim. The act of driving at
a high speed in a residential area demonstrates knowledge of the likely consequences, aligning with the
elements of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as defined under the applicable law.Upon
examining the facts and evidence, this Court concludes that the act of the juvenile constitutes culpable
homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder under Section 105 of the BNS Act.

The appeal challenging the decision to try the juvenile as an adult is dismissed.

The charge against the juvenile shall be framed for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under
the applicable provision of law.

THE COURT MAYBE ADJOURNED

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy