A court in Delhi sought response of Delhi police on a plea of a teenager, who allegedly ran over a 32-year-old marketing executive while driving his father’s Mercedes, challenging the Juvenile Justice Board’s (JJB) order to try him as an adult.
Additional Sessions Judge Vimal Kumar Yadav fixed July 2 for hearing the arguments of Delhi police and the boy on the appeal.
During the hearing, counsel for the teenager informed the court that they have not got a copy of the charge sheet.
On the court’s direction, the investigating officer then provided a copy of the charge sheet and other documents annexed with it to the boy, who along with his parents was also present in the court.
Special Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastava said as per the amended provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the sessions court cannot send back the case to the board and if it thinks that the boy should not be tried as an adult, it has to try the case itself by acting as the board’s presiding officer.
Police has also filed an application seeking cancellation of bail of the boy’s father.
In the appeal, the boy’s counsel claimed that at best he could be booked for alleged offence of causing death by rash and negligent act and it was not a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for which he has been charged.
It said the boy’s previous offences are of traffic violation and not related to accidents. So it’s not a ground to convert section 304A of IPC into section 304 of IPC.
On July 2, the court would also hear the main case which was sent to it by JJB that had on June 4 ordered that the boy would face trial as an adult while observing that the offence allegedly committed by him was “heinous”.
The board had passed the order on the police’s plea seeking transfer of the case to trial court to try the accused as an adult.
It is the first of its kind case since the amendment in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 which allowed the Board to transfer cases of heinous offences by children to the sessions court.
As per section 2(33) of the Act, “heinous offences” include offences for which minimum punishment under IPC or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years or more.
The police had on May 26 chargesheeted the juvenile in JJB for culpable homicide not amounting to murder which entails a maximum of 10 years jail.
Initially, a case under IPC section 304 A was lodged against him but later he was booked for the alleged offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sent to the reform home.
Police had said in its charge sheet that the boy had fatally run over victim Siddharth Sharma with his father’s Mercedes when Sharma was trying to cross a road near Ludlow Castle School in north Delhi on April 4.
The final report was filed for alleged offences under IPC sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 279 (driving on a public way so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life) and 337 (causing hurt by an act which endangers human life) against him.
The Board had on April 26 granted bail to the youth who sought the relief to appear in entrance examinations.
The police had earlier arrested a man who claimed to be the actual driver of the Mercedes at the time of incident. But the man did a volte face after he got to know the victim was dead.
The driver and the boy’s father, who was also arrested earlier, were granted bail by the court.
The youth had appeared before a Delhi court to surrender and had moved a bail plea which was rejected on the ground that it was a matter of JJB. He was then produced before the board.