New Delhi: In what can trigger a debate about the need to limit the lick of the criminal legal body according to the law in the age group 16-18, the Supreme Court on Thursday refused to guarantee a 16-year-old boy who was accused of sexual attacks a girl aged 14 year.
Although the Prima Facie medical report appeared in supporting the boy, the CJI NV Ramana bench and Surya Kant’s justice felt that considering the seriousness of violations, would be wise to wait until the court court recorded a testimony of small survivors.
Appearing for children who contrary to the law, Advocate Manu Yadav told the bench that HC ignored the mandate of the laws on the Youth Justice Law to release minor in conflict with the law on whether he had committed a violation that could be respected or could not Respected.
“This is a mandatory provision.
He is a boy who goes and has the right to guarantee,” argued.
The bench said it was aware of the provisions of the Youth Justice Law but the nature of the allegations of the crime in such a way that it would be wiser to provide a guarantee to this boy at this stage.
“You waited until the rape victim was examined by the court of trial.
You can update the plea guarantee after he was examined by the court court,” Bench said.
When Yadav said that the trial could take a long time to be resolved because most trial courts were closed for physical hearing because of a pandemic, LED bench CJI said HC had improved the time frame for the settlement of the trial.
SC directed the trial court to strictly comply with a one-year time schedule that was fixed by HC to complete the trial.
Part 12 of the JJ Law gives that “(1) when there are people, who seem to be a child and allegedly commit a doubtful or irregular violation, arrested or detained by the police or appear before (teen justice) Board, the person will, regardless of what Even contained in the criminal procedure code, 1973 or in other laws for now apply, released with guarantees with or without collateral or placed under the supervision of trusteeship or under the supervision of the care of the person who is fit: provided that the person will not be released so released It appears reasonable reasons to believe that the release tends to bring that person to be an association with a criminal known or explain the person with a moral, physical or psychological danger or the release of the person will defeat the tip of justice, and the board will record a reason to deny the guarantee and circumstances which caused such a decision.
“Section 12 (2) said,” Ket Ika the person was arrested not released on the guarantee under paragraph (1) by officers responsible for the police station, the officer would cause the person to be stored only in the observation of the house.
In such a way as being prescribed until the person can be brought forward.
“Section 12 (4) said,” When a child is contrary to the law cannot meet the requirements of the guarantee order within seven days after the guarantee order, the child will be produced before the modification of the guarantee conditions.
“The debate about the negative social impacts of the punishment of adolescence The age group 16-18 was triggered by the involvement of minors, who had just been less than 18 years old, in the case of Nirda which shook the country and brought changes in criminal law dealing with cases of sexual violence.
But, the minors escaped with punishment light.
The Supreme Court rejected the guarantee with a 16-year-old rape accused
