Patna High Court Overturns Juvenile's Rape Conviction Citing Procedural Lapses, Notes JJ Board Acted Against His 'Best Interest'

The Juvenile Justice Board had convicted the juvenile in 2019 for rape and he was directed to be kept in a Special Home for two years; this was also upheld by the appellate court against which the juvenile moved the high court in appeal.

Overturning the conviction the high court noted that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts and hence it would be "unsafe and unjust" to hold the petitioner guilty of the alleged offence. 

Further noting significant procedural lapses, lack of evidence, and non-consideration of the Social Investigation Report (SIR) submitted by the Probation Officer, Justice Jitendra Kumar in his order also emphasized that the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules provide that while taking any decisions with reference to any juvenile in conflict with law, the "best interest of the juvenile" must be the "primary consideration". It noted that the SIR on the juvenile contains no criminal antecedent. 

Finding that the best interest of the juvenile was not followed in the present case the high court said,

"However, I find that while passing order under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, 2000, the J.J. Board/Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the Social Investigation Report to decide what was in the best interest of the petitioner. By sending him to special home for two years, the Board/Court acted against the interest of the petitioner by not providing him appropriate opportunity to continue his studies. He should have also directed District Administration to help the poor family of the petitioner to tide over his economic hardship by way of ensuring benefits of poverty alleviation government schemes. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the J.J. Board and learned Appellate Court below are not sustainable in the eye of law, and hence, they are liable to be set aside.”

While coming to this conclusion, the Court examined the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Rule 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Rules, 2007 (2007 Rules). It remarked,

“From the object and statutory provisions of the J.J. Act, 2000, and the Rules made thereunder, it also transpires that during the juvenile inquiry by the J.J. Board, the Board is required not only to find guilt/innocence of the juvenile, but also to investigate the underlying social and familial causes of the offence committed by the juvenile so that the Board/Court may pass appropriate order with intent to reform, rehabilitate and re- integrate the errant juvenile with mainstream of the society. Punishment of juvenile in conflict with law has never been the purpose of the juvenile justice.” 

However, despite the conviction being set-aside, the Court was inclined to grant compensation to the girl as she had suffered from a sexual offence and was thus a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of CrPC. Referring to Section 357A of CrPC, which empowers the State Legal Services Authority to pay compensation to the victim even when the accused is acquitted, discharged, or not traced, the Court held,

“… this Court is duty bound to recommend the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to pay compensation to the victim/informant of this case, as per the Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme 2014, within one month of receipt of this order.”

Background

On the basis of the statement of the minor girl, it transpired that the petitioner/accused, who was also a minor, along with his co-accused, forcibly took the minor girl to a maize field and committed penetrative sexual assault, leading to injuries on her private parts.

After inquiry, the petitioner was convicted by the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Board, Samastipur, under Section 376 of IPC and was directed to be kept in Special Home for two years. Aggrieved by the conviction, he approached the Fast Track Court-I, Samastipur (Appellate Court), which upheld the conviction by an order dated 29.03.2019 (impugned order). Thereafter, the aggrieved petitioner filed the present Criminal Revision Petition assailing the judgment of the Appellate Court.

It was the case of the petitioner that the judgment and the conviction handed down by the JJ Board was not sustainable as the conviction was based on perverse appreciation of evidence and the sentence passed was against the object and spirit of the JJ Act.

On the contrary, the survivor argued that there was no illegality or infirmity in the conviction, and that under its revisional jurisdiction, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record. The survivor further argued that the Courts below had committed gross illegality in not passing any order regarding compensation to the victim despite the minor girl having suffered penetrative sexual assault.

Findings

At the outset, the Court clarified that in its revisional jurisdiction, it cannot re-evaluate evidence like an appellate court, except in cases of glaring legal errors or findings resulting in miscarriage of justice.

With respect to the legality of the conviction— the Court noted that in her cross-examination, the girl had acknowledged that there was a prevailing rivalry between her family and that of the petitioner, however, she deposed that she had not falsely implicated the petitioner on account of the enmity. The Court went on to note that the doctor who had examined the girl had found injury on her private parts, however she deposed that she was “not in a position to decide whether rape was committed”. Moreover, neither her clothes which she stated to be blood-stained were seized, nor was there any scientific investigation substantiating the conviction.

The Court also referred to Section 15 and 16 of the JJ Act 2000 and Rule 3 of the 2007 Rules, a conjoint reading of which posits that the Court or JJ Board must concentrate on advice, rehabilitation and restoration of the juvenile in conflict with law and must consider his SIR before passing any order against him. The SIR of the petitioner highlighted that he was of a 'co-operative nature' with no criminal antecedents. The same was not considered by the Court below, which the Court held was against the best interest of the petitioner.

Against this backdrop, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, along with the impugned order which upheld the conviction.

Lastly, on the question of compensation which the survirvor was entitled to— the Court emphasised that while there was no provision in the JJ Act, 2000, to provide compensation to a victim of crime, the general principles regarding compensation provided under CrPC were equally applicable in criminal proceedings conducted by the J.J. Boards or Children Courts. Accordingly, the Court held that the girl is entitled to receive compensation irrespective of conviction, acquittal or discharge of the accused.

The petition was allowed.

Case Title: X v. The State of Bihar

Click Here To Read/Download Order