Patna High Court Overturns Juvenile’s Rape Conviction Citing Procedural Lapses, Notes JJ Board Acted Against His ‘Best Interest’
The Patna Excessive Court docket has put aside the conviction of a juvenile-in-conflict-with legislation for raping a minor woman, whereas concurrently directing the Bihar State Authorized Providers Authority to pay compensation to the survivor.
The Juvenile Justice Board had convicted the juvenile in 2019 for rape and he was directed to be stored in a Particular Residence for 2 years; this was additionally upheld by the appellate court docket towards which the juvenile moved the excessive court docket in attraction.
Overturning the conviction the excessive court docket famous that the prosecution did not show its case towards the petitioner past all affordable doubts and therefore it will be “unsafe and unjust” to carry the petitioner responsible of the alleged offence.
Additional noting vital procedural lapses, lack of proof, and non-consideration of the Social Investigation Report (SIR) submitted by the Probation Officer, Justice Jitendra Kumar in his order additionally emphasised that the Juvenile Justice Act and Guidelines present that whereas taking any choices close to any juvenile in battle with legislation, the “finest curiosity of the juvenile” have to be the “major consideration”. It famous that the SIR on the juvenile comprises no legal antecedent.
Discovering that one of the best curiosity of the juvenile was not adopted within the current case the excessive court docket stated,
“Nonetheless, I discover that whereas passing order below Part 15 of the J.J. Act, 2000, the J.J. Board/Appellate Court docket has not considered the Social Investigation Report back to determine what was in one of the best curiosity of the petitioner. By sending him to particular house for 2 years, the Board/Court docket acted towards the curiosity of the petitioner by not offering him applicable alternative to proceed his research. He ought to have additionally directed District Administration to assist the poor household of the petitioner to tide over his financial hardship by means of guaranteeing advantages of poverty alleviation authorities schemes. In view of the aforesaid information and circumstances, each the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence handed by the J.J. Board and discovered Appellate Court docket under are usually not sustainable within the eye of legislation, and therefore, they’re liable to be put aside.”
Whereas coming to this conclusion, the Court docket examined the Juvenile Justice (Care and Safety of Youngsters) Act, 2000 and Rule 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Safety Of Youngsters) Guidelines, 2007 (2007 Guidelines). It remarked,
“From the item and statutory provisions of the J.J. Act, 2000, and the Guidelines made thereunder, it additionally transpires that in the course of the juvenile inquiry by the J.J. Board, the Board is required not solely to seek out guilt/innocence of the juvenile, but in addition to research the underlying social and familial causes of the offence dedicated by the juvenile in order that the Board/Court docket might cross applicable order with intent to reform, rehabilitate and re- combine the errant juvenile with mainstream of the society. Punishment of juvenile in battle with legislation has by no means been the aim of the juvenile justice.”
Nonetheless, regardless of the conviction being set-aside, the Court docket was inclined to grant compensation to the woman as she had suffered from a sexual offence and was thus a ‘sufferer’ below Part 2(wa) of CrPC. Referring to Part 357A of CrPC, which empowers the State Authorized Providers Authority to pay compensation to the sufferer even when the accused is acquitted, discharged, or not traced, the Court docket held,
“… this Court docket is obligation certain to suggest the Bihar State Authorized Providers Authority to pay compensation to the sufferer/informant of this case, as per the Bihar Sufferer Compensation Scheme 2014, inside one month of receipt of this order.”
Background
On the premise of the assertion of the minor woman, it transpired that the petitioner/accused, who was additionally a minor, alongside along with his co-accused, forcibly took the minor woman to a maize area and dedicated penetrative sexual assault, resulting in accidents on her personal elements.
After inquiry, the petitioner was convicted by the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Board, Samastipur, below Part 376 of IPC and was directed to be stored in Particular Residence for 2 years. Aggrieved by the conviction, he approached the Quick Monitor Court docket-I, Samastipur (Appellate Court docket), which upheld the conviction by an order dated 29.03.2019 (impugned order). Thereafter, the aggrieved petitioner filed the current Legal Revision Petition assailing the judgment of the Appellate Court docket.
It was the case of the petitioner that the judgment and the conviction handed down by the JJ Board was not sustainable because the conviction was primarily based on perverse appreciation of proof and the sentence handed was towards the item and spirit of the JJ Act.
Quite the opposite, the survivor argued that there was no illegality or infirmity within the conviction, and that below its revisional jurisdiction, the Court docket can’t re-appreciate the proof on file. The survivor additional argued that the Courts under had dedicated gross illegality in not passing any order concerning compensation to the sufferer regardless of the minor woman having suffered penetrative sexual assault.
Findings
On the outset, the Court docket clarified that in its revisional jurisdiction, it can’t re-evaluate proof like an appellate court docket, besides in instances of evident authorized errors or findings leading to miscarriage of justice.
With respect to the legality of the conviction— the Court docket famous that in her cross-examination, the woman had acknowledged that there was a prevailing rivalry between her household and that of the petitioner, nonetheless, she deposed that she had not falsely implicated the petitioner on account of the enmity. The Court docket went on to notice that the physician who had examined the woman had discovered harm on her personal elements, nonetheless she deposed that she was “not ready to determine whether or not rape was dedicated”. Furthermore, neither her garments which she acknowledged to be blood-stained had been seized, nor was there any scientific investigation substantiating the conviction.
The Court docket additionally referred to Part 15 and 16 of the JJ Act 2000 and Rule 3 of the 2007 Guidelines, a conjoint studying of which posits that the Court docket or JJ Board should consider recommendation, rehabilitation and restoration of the juvenile in battle with legislation and should think about his SIR earlier than passing any order towards him. The SIR of the petitioner highlighted that he was of a ‘co-operative nature’ with no legal antecedents. The identical was not thought of by the Court docket under, which the Court docket held was towards one of the best curiosity of the petitioner.
In opposition to this backdrop, the Court docket put aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, together with the impugned order which upheld the conviction.
Lastly, on the query of compensation which the survirvor was entitled to— the Court docket emphasised that whereas there was no provision within the JJ Act, 2000, to offer compensation to a sufferer of crime, the overall rules concerning compensation supplied below CrPC had been equally relevant in legal proceedings performed by the J.J. Boards or Youngsters Courts. Accordingly, the Court docket held that the woman is entitled to obtain compensation no matter conviction, acquittal or discharge of the accused.
The petition was allowed.
Case Title: X v. The State of Bihar