Didn’t want to go tuition, killed teacher’s mother-in-law: Court upholds adult trial

The order noted that according to the minor’s father, the boy did not wish to go for tuition classes and committed the murder in a bid to threaten his teacher.

Considering the Juvenile Justice Board’s (JJB) report, which revealed that the petitioner lived in good conditions and was disciplined, Justice Bedi noted that the boy was also religious, though it was suggested that he lacked knowledge of the law. The court found that psychiatric, social investigation, and assessment reports showed that he had the mental capacity and maturity to understand the consequences of the offence.

Teen attacked teacher’s mother-in-law

According to the FIR registered in Faridabad on August 5, 2025, the tuition teacher alleged that her 16-year-old student attacked her mother-in-law while she was in the bathroom. The victim later succumbed to the injuries.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi noted that the student was mentally capable of understanding the nature of the alleged offence and its consequences.

The FIR stated that the boy attended tuition classes at the residence of the woman who lived in the same building. It was claimed that he usually went for the class between 12  and 12.30 pm, but on the day of the incident, he reached five to seven minutes ahead of time but did not bring his notebook.

The woman said she sent him back to get his notebook and went to the bathroom. While in the bathroom, she heard her mother-in-law’s scream and rushed out to see the older woman lying on the bed in a pool of blood. The tuition teacher said she saw the boy standing in the same room. She screamed and ran outside, calling the neighbours for help.

JJB seeks to try as juvenile

The accused, who was around 16 years and four months old at the time of the incident, was produced before the JJB. After considering the social investigation report, psychiatric evaluation, and preliminary assessment, the board held on January 5 that he should be tried as a juvenile, noting his age, lack of prior criminal involvement, academic record, and the circumstances of the offence.

The complainant woman challenged the order before the trial court, which set it aside on March 12. The trial court held that the boy had the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and understand its consequences, and should, therefore, face trial as an adult. The boy then approached the high court against this order.

HC upholds trial court’s order

The high court noted that the psychiatrist’s report said the minor was an above-average student, had no history of mental illness, and was mentally capable of understanding the nature of the alleged offence and its consequences. The preliminary assessment report revealed that he had specific career goals.

A cumulative reading of these reports would reveal that the petitioner is of above-average intelligence with no history of past psychiatric illness. “Thus, he had the mental capacity and ability to understand the consequences of the alleged offence,” it reads.

Upholding the trial court’s order, the high court held that psychiatric, social investigation, and preliminary assessment reports showed that the boy possessed the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and understood its nature and consequences, thus warranting an adult trial.