The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction of a juvenile who had been found guilty of raping a minor girl. The court observed multiple procedural lapses, lack of evidence, and a failure by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court to uphold the legal principles of juvenile justice, especially the "best interest of the child."
Case Background
The case dates back to 2011, when a minor girl lodged a complaint alleging that she was sexually assaulted by the petitioner and a co-accused. Based on her statement, an FIR was registered, and during the investigation, both accused claimed juvenility. The co-accused was found innocent, and only the petitioner was charge-sheeted.
Read Also:- Patna High Court: Former MLA Must Pay ₹20.98 Lakh for Illegal Stay in Govt Quarter
The Juvenile Justice Board found the petitioner guilty under Section 376 of IPC and ordered him to be kept in a Special Home for two years. The appellate court upheld this judgment, leading the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Patna High Court.
Court Observations on Evidence and Procedure
Justice Jitendra Kumar, while delivering the verdict, made critical observations on the manner in which the trial was conducted. He noted:
“It would be unsafe and unjust to hold the petitioner guilty of the alleged offence. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.”
The High Court highlighted the following issues:
- No eyewitnesses to the incident.
- Medical examination revealed injuries but could not confirm rape.
- Blood-stained clothes were neither seized nor examined.
- No scientific evidence like DNA tests was conducted.
Additionally, the prosecution’s reliance on hearsay witnesses and procedural lapses by the Investigating Officer weakened the case.
Violation of Juvenile’s Rights Under JJ Act
The court found that both the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court ignored the Social Investigation Report (SIR) submitted by the Probation Officer. The report confirmed that the petitioner had:
- No prior criminal record.
- A cooperative nature.
- Belonged to a poor family with no negative remarks from the community.
“By sending him to the Special Home for two years, the Board and the Court acted against his interest, depriving him of the opportunity to continue his studies.”
Purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act
Justice Kumar emphasized that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, is not punitive in nature. Its objective is to reform and rehabilitate children in conflict with the law and reintegrate them into society.
“Punishing a juvenile contradicts the very spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act. It is restorative, not retributive.”
The court cited Supreme Court rulings and statutory provisions under the JJ Act and JJ Rules, 2007, which stress rehabilitation, family reintegration, and using institutionalization as a last resort.
Compensation to the Victim
Though the conviction was overturned, the court acknowledged that the victim had suffered harm. Invoking Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014, the court held:
“This Court is duty-bound to recommend the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to pay compensation to the victim within one month.”
The judgment also clarified that compensation under CrPC can be awarded irrespective of conviction or acquittal, and courts—be it trial, appellate, or revisional—are obligated to consider this.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
This case stands out for its holistic interpretation of juvenile justice and victim rights. Key takeaways include:
- Reaffirmation of the best interest of the juvenile as a primary principle.
- Recognition of the victim’s right to compensation even when the accused is acquitted.
- Emphasis on scientific and procedural integrity during juvenile inquiry.
The Patna High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to pay appropriate compensation to the victim as per statutory guidelines.
“The judgments of both the JJ Board and the Appellate Court are unsustainable in law and are hereby quashed.”
Case Title: [Juvenile] v. The State of Bihar