Juvenile’s crime and punishment: Murder of 6-year-old Ganesh

READ | Teen convicted of killing 6-year-old son of neighbours

The person Kumar says should have “just asked” him, did ask, but it was not a request. It was a ransom call for Rs 1.5 lakh. This was same amount he had raised with difficulty to undergo a heart surgery some time ago. The call had come from the 17-year-old boy who lived next door in their locality in central Delhi, police soon found out. Police also found Ganesh’s body from a park barely 100 metres away from his home. The child’s throat had been slit. Kumar is still unable to come to terms with this. The teenager was ‘bhaiyya’ (brother) to Ganesh.

[related-post]

Watch Video: What’s making news

No one saw it coming. The teenager was popular in the neighbourhood as the ‘tech guru’. Technology was his life. Instead of playing outside like others his age, he spent most of his time in his 12 square metre home located in a narrow lane, exploring the world he loved. People in the area are not in denial mode over what he did, but it is difficult to miss some remarks such as: “He was so talented, how could he?” and “All for an iPhone?”

“The teenager was aware Kumar had raised Rs 1.5 lakh for his heart surgery. He thought Kumar could definitely raise the same amount to get back his son. He wanted an iPhone and decided to kidnap Ganesh. He got scared and murdered the child, but still made the ransom call,” says a police officer associated with the case.

Last week, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) found the teenager guilty of having kidnapped and murdered Ganesh. The board sent him to a correctional home for three years.

JJB Principal Judge Vishal Singh observed the teenager “lacks value for human life” and the incident revealed the failure of his guardians. “It seems that the reformation and rehabilitation of the juvenile can be a very long drawn process through institutionalized inculcation of good moral values and psychological counselling for sound mental equilibrium. At this stage, it will not be in the interest of justice to send the juvenile back to the vitiated atmosphere in which he committed the offence. Hence, the juvenile is ordered to be kept at special home… for three years,” the judge said in his order.

The downward spiral

The teenager’s father was a vegetable vendor and his elder brother worked in a pharmacy store. Life was not all that the Class XI humanities stream student of a government school wanted, but he had his outlet in technology and gadgets.

After returning from school, he used to accompany his father and set up their vegetable kiosk. That did not hold his interest. He started sitting in a mobile phone repairing shop nearby and often ask the owners and employees about the latest range of high-end phones.

Later, he used to go to the mobile repairing shop of Vinod in his locality. “He used to come to my shop and ask us hundreds of questions. Initially, we used to answer him, but later started avoiding him as his queries never stopped,” says Vinod, recalling the teenager’s insatiable curiosity.

People still remember the teenager as the ‘techie’ of the area. “I remember he was the first person everyone would go to for getting their phones or other gadgets repaired. He mostly stayed indoors and did not have many friends. He had once fixed my phone’s speaker,” says Sanjay Kumar, an autorickshaw driver.

Incidentally, it was Sanjay’s information which helped police in the case. After Ganesh disappeared, Sanjay told the police he had seen Ganesh playing with the teenager some time before he vanished.

Sanjay also recalls a dark side of the teenager. “He was caught stealing from a neighbour to buy a laptop. He had one and spent hours on it. He was smart with gadgets and would break trackers installed in mobile phones and sell them. Despite these small incidents, it is hard to believe he killed the 6-year-old child.” Sanjay adds, “Their families knew each other well and he probably thought nobody would suspect him.”

The teenager’s parents moved out of locality after he was apprehended in the case. They have left Delhi, according to police. The teenager’s paternal uncle is still in the neighbourhood. He claimed they have broken all ties with him.

“Even if he comes back, we will not accept him. He has brought immense shame to the family. It became difficult for his parents to live here. It is a low-profile area, but respectable families live here and try hard to keep their children away from criminal activities. What he did is not pardonable and sets a bad example for society,” said the teenager’s uncle.

First stint in correctional home

The teenager, who was apprehended soon after the crime, was sent to an observation home. “He was here for eight months, during which he mostly kept to himself. At times, he would show signs of regret and remorse, but unlike most juveniles, his behaviour was rather normal and, more importantly, non-violent,” says an official at the observation home.

The boy enrolled into three to four vocational and skill-based courses while in the observation home. “It was a bit surprising to see his overall performance and leaning towards the computer course. He picked up fast. Soon after completing the computer course, he started leading the other batchmates and would help them solve problems. He was sharp,” the official adds.

His teacher’s assessment

A teacher at the government school where the teenager studied recalls him as reserved and an average student. “It is difficult for me to remember much because he was one of those students who are hard to notice. He was average in academics and did not mix much with the other children. I never saw his parents or anybody after the case here.”

Distraught: Scarred, parents no longer allow daughters to play with neighbours

Pramod Kumar and Guddi Devi no longer allow their three daughters to play in the neighbourhood or with children of neighbours. Ganesh was their only son. The parents of the murdered child are not satisfied with the teenager convicted of the crime being sent to a correctional home. “God will do justice one day,” says the couple.

Kumar says, “That boy (teenager) was born and brought up in front of me. I never expected he would do something like this only to get a high-end phone. He could have just asked me for the iPhone, I would have arranged one for him.”

He adds, “I had lot of dreams for my son. I wanted him to study hard to become a big man in his life. I always fulfilled all his demands and was planning to buy a phone for him. I had asked him not to always go with that boy (the juvenile convict) and promised him a mobile phone. But he always enticed my son with fancy gadgets.”

Guddi Devi wants the teenager to be hanged. “He got punishment of only three years. He should be hanged and the court should set a benchmark with this judgment because nowadays juveniles are misusing the law on the grounds of being juvenile.”

Raising question marks on the police investigation, she alleges the teenager’s mother was also involved in the crime. “She washed the bloodstained clothes of her son when he came back after killing my son. Instead of arresting her, police solved the case and claimed no one else was involved,” she says.

“We have lost our son and now his memory only left with us. After this incident, we directed our daughters not to go outside and play with any neighbours.”

Tracking the Case: How police zeroed in on the teenager

The ransom amount Rs 1.5 lakh demanded set the police on the trail of the perpetrator. More than 70 police personnel of central district. “Several teams were formed with specific tasks. After questioning the neighbours and relatives, police believed a person who knew the family was involved because it was clear professionals would not have kidnapped a fruit vendor’s son and demanded Rs 1.5 lakh as ransom,” says Alok Kumar, then ACP (central district).

After autorickshaw driver Sanjay Kumar told the police he had seen Ganesh with the teenager before the child vanished, police narrowed down the search. “Police tracked down the number used to make the ransom call. It belonged to a woman who lived in the locality. When questioned, she said four people, including the teenager, had used her phone. Police questioned the juvenile in the presence of his parents. He claimed he did not know why we were questioning him,” says a police officer associated with the case. As his questioning continued, a police team found Ganesh’s body.

“The juvenile was trying to mislead investigators by cooking up stories. The caller had spoken in Haryanvi. Investigators checked the juvenile’s phone location and call history,” adds the officer. A big clue came after investigators found the ransom call was made after changing the caller’s voice with a software, which police found in the teenager’s phone. “The call was made from a phone he had bought from Gaffar Market,” says the officer. “Investigators bluffed the juvenile that they had the forensic report of the ransom caller’s voice sample and his game was up because they knew he had committed the crime. The juvenile finally broke down and confessed to the crime,” adds the officer. He remembers the teenager saying he had planned the crime for a month after watching a crime show on television.

During questioning, the juvenile disclosed he wanted the money to buy an iPhone. “He committed the crime and made the ransom call after he came to know that the victim’s father had spent Rs 1.5 lakh on a surgery. This led him to believe that he could extort a similar amount. He killed Ganesh because the child could identify him,” says the officer. “On the day of the crime, the teenager lured the child by telling him they would play on PlayStation. He slit the boy’s throat with a knife and made the ransom call within minutes, before returning home.”