Young rapist gets ten years in prison

Observing that there was “absolute chaos, confusion and uncertainty” over the role of various officials in the Rehabilitation of Children in Conflict (CCL), the court also directed the Delhi government to issue a standing order to address various concerns regarding to youth issues. Additional Sessions Judge Susheel Bala Dagar heard arguments on the conviction of the minor, who was earlier convicted under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act. He was also convicted of the offense of kidnapping. According to the prosecutor, in violation of the law, the child, who was approximately 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, forcibly took the victim to his home and raped her on June 4, 2017. In the judgment delivered on Tuesday, the court after Considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the child was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and seven years’ imprisonment for kidnapping in violation of law. The court said the sentences would run concurrently.

The court also awarded compensation of Rs 10.5 lakh to the victim. Meanwhile, the court, while castigating the authorities concerned, said that despite the fact that the minor stayed in an observation home for 79 days, his Individual Care Plan (ICP) and rehabilitation card were not drawn up, nor was a probation officer working on the case after his release on bail. .

“This shows the failure of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) system and non-compliance with the legal provisions of the JJ Act and the JJ Model Rules. Perfunctory reports and periodic evaluations have been submitted from time to time at the initiative of the ICP. of the court and they are of limited value because they are not a product of any rehabilitation process…”, the court said. The court said there was “absolute chaos, confusion and uncertainty” over the role of various officials in the implementation of the plan for the rehabilitation of CCLs. “There seems to be no clarity on the role, and here too, no attention seems to be paid to such matters at the operational level,” the court ordered the secretary of the department Women and Child Development (WCD) of the Delhi government directed to issue a detailed standing order to address “operational problems, issues of non-compliance with the provisions of the JJ Act and its rules, procedural ambiguities, adequacy of various forms and rules reports etc. and other matters of concern relating to cases of CCL coming before children’s courts”.

Citing the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, the court noted that when a CCL was tried as an adult offender, the court had to determine whether the juvenile had been reformed at the time the final order was issued, and that a reformed CCL could be be released at the age of 21 on the basis of the reforms.

By law, when sentencing a CCL, reform and rehabilitation were the primary concerns and the court was not required to impose a maximum sentence. “Taking into account the facts and circumstances and according to the previous reports received from the concerned superintendents, the CCL has not undergone any corrective therapy for his reformation and rehabilitation, nor undergone any vocational course or continued his studies… The CCL cannot be released, but he needs reform,” the court said.

The court said that the concept of prison discipline was based on deterrence and reform, and that the prison was more of a correctional or improvement facility, with an emphasis on reforming the prisoner through punishment.