Accused challenges JJB’s order to try him as adult; hearing on Dec 1

The counsel of 21-year-old accused, who as a juvenile was apprehended on charges of murdering a sevenyear-old boy at the private school in Gurugram where they both studied in 2017, on Wednesday challenged the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)’s order to try him as an adult. The court has scheduled the next hearing of arguments to December 1.

In its reply, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which investigated the case, said the suspect should be tried as an adult as the crime was not the result of sudden provocation. The victim’s counsel also filed an application on Wednesday seeking day-to-day trial in the case as it has been pending since 2017.

The Supreme Court on October 20 granted interim bail to the suspect who was 16 years old at the time of the crime. The apex court’s bail verdict came three days after the JJB ruled that he must be tried in the case as an adult since he was “mature enough” to understand the consequences of his actions and to think of ways to escape punishment. On October 31, district and sessions judge Surya Pratap Singh assigned the court of additional sessions judge Tarun Singhal to conduct the trial of the case.

The juvenile had, through his lawyer Vishal Gupta, sought time to challenge the JJB order.

The appeal filed by the counsel stated that the impugned order was illegal and liable to be set aside by the sessions court on the grounds that JJB failed to consider the social investigation report (SIR) and the statements of neighbours, who have described the accused as “sincere, obedient, sensitive, and helpful”. It alleged that the board selectively relied upon the word ”aggressive” made in the statement of a teacher.

“The teachers have said in their statements that they had never received any complaints against the accused and he used to participate in all school functions. He had not faced any abuse or trauma at home, and that his family environment was good and healthy. The court,however, fails to consider that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the fact that the alleged offence was committed since the JCL wanted to get the PTM (parent teacher meeting) postponed. The same is completely contrary on the face of it,” said the accused in the appeal.

The victim’s counsel, Sushil Tekriwal, said the accused’s father has challenged all the orders passed by the courts since 2017.