Delhi court questions 'doublespeak' on juveniles
- Will reach out to 'muslim' brothers, address Ram Temple issue: Modi
- Congress backs Priyanka Gandhi as she hits out at opposition for 'targeting Robert Vadra without proof'
- CJI bars advocate's entry in SC for 6 months for sexual harrassment
- April 22 Campaign roundup: Modi hurls a 'khooni panja' at Cong, says its responsible for 1100 lives in Telangana
- IPL 7 Live Cricket Score, KXIP vs SRH: KXIP beat SRH by 72 runs
In a criminal trial, if a juvenile girl can be judged on the basis of her assumed mental and physical developments, why should a juvenile accused be let off by giving benefits that he was less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident?
While a debate rages over the trial of a Delhi gangrape accused who has been declared a juvenile, a Delhi court has questioned the "doublespeak" by the courts of law in the country, and regretted that different standards are being adopted when a juvenile is an accused and when she is a victim.
Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau, delivering a verdict in a case of kidnapping and rape of a minor girl, expressed dismay at the fact that there was no strict rule to be followed and hence two parameters were being exercised in criminal cases involving juveniles.
She referred to a 1964 Supreme Court verdict that gave benefit of doubt to a male accused in a similar case after noting that the victim was on the verge of attaining her majority. The judge, however, highlighted that this discretion with the courts was apparently taken away after the Juvenile Justice Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act made stricto-senso the age of majority as 18. It was mandated to ignore mental and physical development of the individuals.
"The courts of law cannot indulge in double speak by adopting two standards. One for the juvenile accused and another for the victim. If a juvenile accused is held entitled to the benefit of juvenility even if he or she is few days lesser than the age provided by the statute — irrespective of the biological and mental development, then by the same logic the victim in case of a sexual offence is required to be protected even if she is on the verge of attaining majority or is few days less than the age of consent — irrespective of her assumed mental or biological development," held ASJ Lau.
- Five months after gruesome ATM attack, accused still at large
- Ex-syndicate member of Bangalore University held in marks-for-cash scam
- Accused get bail as police fail to file chargesheet
- ‘Naxals collected info on trucks carrying explosives from Khadki to Ahmednagar’
- A tale of two villages: Ramayan and Mahabharat
- UP CM tears into Modi bastion on first visit to Gujarat, says Third Front ready