Delhi: Court upholds JJB’s order to send minors to observation homehttps://indianexpress.com/article/delhi/delhi-court-upholds-jjbs-order-to-send-minors-to-observation-home-5460347/

Delhi: Court upholds JJB’s order to send minors to observation home

According to court records, the JJB on August 28, 2018, sent the two children in ‘conflict with the law’ to protective custody at an observation home for six months for their “proper rehabilitation”.

Fake encounter case, Sohrabuddin Fake encounter, CBI probe in fake encounter, Narmadabai, Mumbai News, Indian Express
The incident took place in 2014, when the victim was working at a shop owned by the father of the juveniles and was “forcibly sodomised” by one of the boys.

A Delhi court upheld the Juvenile Justice Board’s (JJB) decision to send two minors, who allegedly “sodomised” and “inserted an iron rod” into the private parts of a minor boy, to an observation home.

According to court records, the JJB on August 28, 2018, sent the two children in ‘conflict with the law’ to protective custody at an observation home for six months for their “proper rehabilitation”.

The incident took place in 2014, when the victim was working at a shop owned by the father of the juveniles and was “forcibly sodomised” by one of the boys. When he complained to the juvenile’s brother, they allegedly inserted an iron rod into his private parts and threatened him.

According to court records, the victim did not tell anyone about the incident and it was given the “colour of an accident” — that he fell from the terrace on “a pointed object”.

Advertising

However, the child later told his mother and she filed a complaint. Police registered an FIR in 2014 under IPC sections 377 (unnatural offences), 307 (attempt to murder) and 34 (common intention).

A Police Investigation Report was then filed before the JJB and the juveniles were “notified” for an inquiry into the offences.

The defence counsel submitted that the CCLs were falsely implicated on account of “hatred, personal enmity”, and to extort money. The counsel added that the FIR was lodged two months late.

In his order issued in October, Additional Sessions Judge Raghubir Singh said nothing could be brought on record to show reasons for hatred or personal enmity.

On the claim of extortion, the court said it was not even indicated in the defence’s argument as to who had allegedly “demanded money and from whom”.

On the minor having sustained the injuries after “falling on a pointed object”, the court said, “As per his MLC, there was laceration in posterior rectal wall… injury of which was possible through (insertion of) elongated hard object.”

The doctor who examined the victim had said the boy had acute urine retention and was suffering “faecal inconsistencies” (loss of ability to hold stool), as per court records.

On the delay in lodging an FIR, the court said “some sort of social stigma” is attached with these kind of incidents.