In a matter transferred before the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonipat for a child in conflict with law to face inquiry for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Bench of Principal Magistrate Justice Vikrant and Mr. Sohan Kumar, Member, absolved the child of the accusation as the evidence failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On 16-06-2023, the police received information that a dead body was found lying near a pond in the village of Madina. When the police officials reached the village, the complainant told the police that he had received a call about his father’s dead body lying near the pond and that there were multiple injuries on the dead body. He found a blood-stained brick piece nearby.
On 18-06-2023, the adult offender was arrested, and based on his statement, the child in conflict with law was apprehended from his maternal uncle’s house. In his statement, the child stated that he and his uncle were plucking mangoes from the fields of the deceased when they were caught and thrashed by him. To take revenge, they pushed the deceased from his bicycle, because of which he fell. Thereafter, the adult offender hit him with a brick. During the incident, the child had held the deceased by his feet, and after his maternal uncle hit the deceased’s face, both of them ran away. According to the school records, the child was under 11 years 6 months old on the date of the incident.
The Board perused the Social Investigation Report (SIR) and noted that neither the child nor his family members had no history of involvement in any offence. The Board found that the child did not have a criminal bent of mind and that no incident was noted by the inquiry officer to suggest that the child was mature enough to understand the consequences of his conduct.
It was noted that no psychological examination of the child had been conducted as per Section 83 of the IPC, and that there was nothing on record to show that the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) had interacted with the child. The Board stated that IPC contemplates doli incapax for children aged 0 to 7 years and 7 to 12 years in Sections 82 and 83, respectively. The Board explained that, in law, doli incapax refers to groups of persons or entities deemed incapable of committing a crime due to the absence of culpable intent, or mens rea. It was stated that Section 83 encapsulates doli incapax as a rebuttable presumption.
The questions before the Board were whether the presumption is in favour of the prosecution or the child, and whether a psychological assessment to ascertain the child’s mental capacity should be conducted during the investigation or inquiry.
The Board did not find merit in the State’s contention and stated that, applying the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty, a child in conflict with law had to be presumed to be innocent too.
It was stated that the law assumes a lack of maturity and places the onus on the prosecution to prove that the child possessed sufficient maturity. Thus, the Board concluded that Sections 82 and 83 made out exceptions to Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act and that the court shall not presume against the child. Considering the general principles under Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, it was said that the assessment for the mental capacity and ability of the child must be made at the time of investigation, only, and a decision must be taken to make the child undergo inquiry or close the file.
In the present case, neither was the child subjected to any assessment, nor were any efforts made to assess the child’s mental capacity. The Board stated that the final report of the investigation should not have been filed without first obtaining the psychological assessment reports. It was held that since the presumption of innocence was not rebutted, the child was entitled to be absolved and set free on this legal ground alone.
The Board noted that the testimony of witnesses failed to inspire confidence as it suffered from material contradictions and that there had been a material lapse on part of the IO since he had failed to record the statement of any other individual present on the spot.
It was held that the evidence on record did not prove the accusations against the child beyond a reasonable doubt, as the acts and conduct of the star witnesses in the case were suspicious and unnatural. Thus, the Board absolved the child of the accusations as there was no forensic evidence to link him with the seized material or the dead body.
Appearances:
For State – Ms. Kavita (APP)
