In a landmark judgment, the Patna High Court underscored the necessity of a reformative rather than punitive approach in handling juveniles in conflict with the law. Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, emphasized that children are the future of society, and subjecting them to punitive measures would be self-destructive for the community. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence of a juvenile under the Arms Act, highlighting that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is rooted in the belief that children should be reformed and rehabilitated, not punished.
The case involved a petitioner, nearly 17 years old at the time of the incident, who was apprehended along with two others, with pistols allegedly recovered from them. The Juvenile Justice Board convicted him, sentencing him to three years in a Special Home, a decision upheld by the Sessions Court. However, the petitioner contended that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of arms from him. One of the seizure witnesses denied any recovery in his presence, stating he was at the police station for a character certificate and was made to sign a blank paper. Additionally, there was no evidence that the seized arms and ammunition were sealed on the spot.
The High Court concurred with the petitioner's arguments, noting that the only evidence presented was from P.W.-5, who stated that the seized arms and ammunition from the petitioner and co-accused were sealed in a sack, without providing details on who sealed it or where. The Court observed that sealing all the arms and ammunition from all three accused in the same sack indicated that the prosecution could not specify which items were recovered from the petitioner. Consequently, the Court held that the seizure and recovery of arms and ammunition from the petitioner could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and convicting him on such evidence would be a travesty of justice.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the order of sentence passed under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, 2000, was not in consonance with the Act's objectives. Justice Kumar highlighted that the Act is based on the belief that children are the future of society and should be reformed and rehabilitated if they come into conflict with the law. He asserted that no society can afford to punish its children, and a punitive approach towards juveniles would be self-destructive.
This judgment reinforces the principle that the juvenile justice system in India is designed to be reformative, focusing on the rehabilitation and reintegration of children into society. It serves as a reminder that the legal framework aims to protect the rights of juveniles and ensure their development, rather than subjecting them to punitive measures that could hinder their future prospects.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.