Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The prayer seeking a direction for placing the whole matter before the JJ Board under Sections 9 and 10 JJ Act could not have been rejected by the Special Judge (POCSO).”
The Court stated that POCSO Act is one of the most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children. Yet, when this legislation is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion.
The Sessions Court having noted that the convict was 16 years old at the time of trial, held that he was entitled to the benefit of the Children Act, 1960 and thus he was directed to be kept in a children’s home in accordance with the provisions of the 1960 Act to give him a chance to reform himself.
The Court explained that when the plea of juvenility was raised, it should have been dealt with under the existing laws at the relevant point of time, especially when there exists a tacit and clear admission as to the age of the Appellant.
Supreme Court: In the Kathua Rape and murder case where one of the accused was found to be taking the statutory shelter
“A casual or cavalier approach while recording as to whether an accused is a juvenile or not cannot be permitted as the courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of protecting the confidence of a common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice.”
Supreme Court: The bench of Dinesh Maheshwari and JB Pardiwala*, JJ has observed that the plea of juvenility can be allowed to