DAYS AFTER the Juvenile Justice Board (jjb) held sixth accused of December 16 gang-rape and murder case as minor, a petition has been moved in the Supreme Court seeking a punishment for him similar to that which will be handed out to his other five accomplices. The petitioner has pleaded that juveniles accused of rape and murder should be tried under normal law instead of juvenile laws. He has also demanded that the Juvenile Justice Act should be struck down when it seems to be violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Juvenile Justice Board order came as a major setback for justice to the 23-year-old victim as it helps the ‘minor accused’ to escape with maximum three year observation at the children’s remand home, though he was alleged to be most brutal and active during the crime. The Delhi Police is seeking legal opinion on challenging the Juvenile Justice Board’s order in the high court. The board had rejected police demand for bone-ossification test on the accused, blindly accepting school records, which describes him to be around 17 and-a-half-year-old. And now, according to some media reports, his parents themselves do not know his real age.
The case has raised the call for standardizing the juvenile age limit, the method for its confirmation and the process of trial and punishment under the ipc. It is being said if a minor is able to rape a girl or commit other brutal crimes, then he should to be considered mature enough to undergo punishment for the same.
The laws pertaining to juveniles are entirely different from those for adults. Under existing laws for children, if the minor is found in conflict with the law, he or she cannot be tried under the provisions of the ipc, but can only be sent for reform for a maximum of three years in a correction centre under a probation officer. This provision makes it easier for criminals to get away with mild punishment for heinous crimes such as rape. It is taking advantage of these laws that another accused in the Delhi gang-rape case has claimed to be underage and appealed to be tried in the juvenile court instead of the fast track one.
A male below the age of 16 years and female below the age of 18 years is described as juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. A 2000 Amendment brought the age of juvenile male and female criminals at par identifying it as 18 years.
But with the growing number of crimes by minors — mainly between the age group of 16 and 18 years — there’s enough reason for reversing the amendment and reinstating the age of juvenile to 16 years. As per government data for the year 2011, more than 1,200 juvenile arrests were in the age group of 7-12 years, 1,1019 were in the age group of 12-16 years and 21,657 were in the age-group of 16-18 years. Percentage wise, the shares of juveniles apprehended under these age groups were 3.6 per cent, 32.5 per cent and 63.9 per cent respectively.
Those asking for lowering the age of juveniles to 16 years argue that it will restrict easy escape of several criminals. In the normal course, after the age of 16, children are able to differentiate between good and bad. Therefore, instead of sticking to age as a single cut-off point, the suggest the court to take into account his maturity level after measuring his iq and keeping in mind the type of crime committed. They also argue that parents and schools should also be held responsible for their failure to groom a child as a responsible citizen.
However, ignoring all these arguments, the Justice Verma Committee report has rejected the idea of lowering the age of minors to 16 from the existing 18 years. It argues that the move would open doors of corruption in cases of crime by minors from influential families.
EITHER WAY, the criteria to consider the culprit as minor is a debatable issue. Merely by presenting a school certificate, the actual age of an accused cannot be authenticated given how age is lowered at will by parents during their child’s school admission. In absence of compulsory birth registration and issuance of certificate, courts usually rely on fake documents for this. In each case, bone test by the court too is not feasible as it also has its own pros and cons. This is the reason, the court has rejected the demand of parents for bone test in Delhi rape case.
Further education, which is the basic right of each and every child, is still beyond most. Most juveniles criminals are uneducated, their parents belong to highly deprived section who don’t have enough resources to send their children to school. Lowering the juvenile age, compulsory certification of birth and death, extension of basic and value-based education and overall improvement in the living standards of the common man are some necessary steps at changing the situation.
In case the government does not find lowering the age feasible, a possible solution could be grouping minor criminals into various age groups and classification of their crimes according to the nature of brutality. In the age span of 16-18 years, there should be provision of severe punishment for highly sensitive crimes. Allowance to juvenile should be restricted only to minor crimes such as theft etc. Our children are the future of country. The government cannot rid itself of its responsibility by merely sending juveniles to reformatories. It needs a comprehensive strategy to minimise such crimes.
Published at The Financial World
No comments:
Post a Comment