The guidelines for trying juveniles accused of heinous crimes still need fine-tuning, given the dilemmas the victims, their families and prosecutors face. A case in point relates to the minor, accused of alleged drunk driving at high speed and killing two IT professionals in Pune last May.
Debates continue even a year later on whether he should be tried as an adult. The prosecutors deem it a heinous crime, which legally obligates the minor’s trial as an adult. The defence argues that only sections prescribing a minimum seven-year punishment are considered heinous; the accused cannot be tried as an adult since none of the charges prescribe such a penalty.
The Juvenile Justice Board sided with the defence, also disallowing the preliminary evaluation of the minor’s mental capacity and maturity to realise the consequences of his actions for trying him as an adult.
This is the grey area that needs attention. In the case of rapes by juveniles, the Nirbhaya case prompted an amendment to the law, deeming rapes as heinous and trying minors as adults. The juvenile boards now apply this yardstick in rape cases. However, death cases are complicated, as in the Pune instance.
We need a more assertive and uniform legal mechanism to clarify these ambiguities. The judiciary must ensure the juvenile board’s discretion is pragmatic and not subjective. If the benefit of doubt favours the juvenile accused on technical grounds, it often sidelines the severity of the offence.
All caused deaths should be declared heinous, its definition not bogged down by sections and punishments. A psychological evaluation must be mandatory, and, in addition to corroborative evidence, it should consider the accused’s actions before and after the incident.
Juvenile law correctly emphasises reformation over retribution, but it must reflect the evolving reality of juvenile criminality. The State and the judiciary act as guardians of juveniles accused, assuming that, by their age, they cannot fully comprehend their criminal actions.
Today, most juveniles, irrespective of the social settings of oppression or indulgence, are no longer naïve or impulsive. Offensive digital and social media content influences them, and many engage in crimes with full awareness, even brutality. Courts must treat all juvenile offenders as products of systemic failure, but exercise rigour in heinous cases where they exhibit violent free will or total indifference.