Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that while conducting preliminary assessment, Juvenile Justice Board was not bound by any opinion or recommendation and must independently apply its mind to all the material available to it, including Social Background Report, Social Investigation Report, witness statements, interaction with the child and every other relevant circumstance.
“The act committed by the accused along with another accused will remain in her life as a scar.”
“The Board shall conduct the preliminary assessment regarding the mental and physical capacity of the child to commit the crime, his ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which the crime was allegedly committed.”
The Court reiterated that heinous offences and crimes against society cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.
The Court stated that the order granting bail is passed in contravention to the well-established jurisprudence of bail, as Respondents 2 and 3, who were involved in heinous crimes, their release will result in weakening of prosecution case and will also have an adverse impact on the society.
The Court opined that there was no detailed report of the assessment made, no document was enclosed along with the report of conducting assessment, procedure adopted, factors assessed, mode of assessment, evaluation of child based on the stages of assessment.
Supreme Court said that the degree or dimension of the offence should not be the direct approach of the Court in its inquiry into juvenility of an accused or convict.
Allahabad High Court said that the purpose is not to persecute the accused, nor is it to let him off because his relations with the complainant has taken a happier turn, as an offence of rape or one under POCSO is an offence against the society.
Delhi High Court: In a case wherein a father-in-law was accused of raping his own daughter-in-law, Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed that, Rape
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S Dixit, J., allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order highlighting the importance of perjury applications
Jammu And Kashmir High Court: Terming it “heinous”, the Division Bench comprising of Tashi Rabstan and Javed Iqbal Wani, JJ., refused to
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and N.J. Jamadar, JJ., observed a matter wherein an adolescent girl who
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Fateh Deep Singh, J. allowed the bail application on the ground that trial was not going to
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Mridula Bhatkar, J. allowed a petition challenging the Juvenile Justice Board, Sangli’s order