Quest For A Better Judgment

27 months in a juvenile home!! 

That was just what the trial court afforded to give to the rape accused in accordance with the Indian law. The reaction that spilled out was as expected that of extreme anger and disappointment. The fury among large swathes of people is legitimate. The accused who allegedly violated the victim’s body with a rod, in any circumstance deserves to get a bigger punishment. Simply because he was 7 months younger than 18 doesn’t justify his inability to understand the moral quality of his act and comprehend its ramifications. What could have those priced and decisive 7months brought for the boy? Surely his propensity to commit such a heinous crime wouldn’t have changed. But sadly the public and more than anyone else the victim in such cases can only lament about the shortcomings and inadequacy of the Juvenile Justice Act.

27 months is a mockery of justice. It fails the bravery of Nirbhaya and those numerous girls and women who were unfortunately raped by a juvenile. The law sadly seems more concerned about the future of the accused rather than the victim. In India, a rape victim not only endures physical injuries but also fights the mental and emotional battle flagged off by the crime and our very own insensitive society. In such cases, her perpetrators being meted out with stern punishment can do wonders for her fumbling confidence. On a broader view it will act as an alarming deterrent for other probable perpetrators and thus instill higher confidence among the currently targeted female population of the country. The court cannot always seek JJA (Juvenile Justice Act) for every crime committed by a below 18. What if someone who is convicted under POTA or TADA is found to be a juvenile? Obviously punishment of 3 years in a reformatory home no ways commensurate with the gravity of such crimes committed. 

The benefits can even be exploited by criminal masterminds in scouting conduits under the age of 18 to carry out serious crimes. Such premeditation and planning (even under someone) clearly indicates the person’s maturity of understanding. 

The law getting stuck with age can be a big letdown and can undo much awaited thoughts of justice in such cases. A finer judgment is what is required. If this very thing called judgment is missing then what’s the purpose of a judge and a court. Law is for people and not the other way around. Although being the tougher path, the case by case approach needs to be incorporated. When heinous and horrendous crimes are at stake, the law simply shouldn’t work on a default formula. Brutality, depravity supported by appropriate forensic investigation needs to be used to judge understanding of an accused. In the current age of technology and all sorts of exposure where a child matures much faster, the boy in question needs to be scanned by law in accordance with his mental and intellectual growth. This has been proposed by many and is the best I can agree to. 

Setting a standard age threshold can be highly unjust for coping with each and every case. Any age for purpose of fixing criminal liability is a disputable proposition. The annoying, yet decisive thin line separating 17 and 18 will remain the same even between 15 and 16 if the age is lowered to 16 (the previous age bar in India). Thus keeping such disputes aside, the heinous crimes definitely call for a finer judgment.

Even if the age of discretion remains 18, the test for age of an accused is a highly dicey issue. School or birth certificates often carry a false date of birth. Bone ossification test is able to predict age to plus, minus a few months and the law takes the lower end of the range. Such uncertainty lends those few months which gets cashed in by the accused. 

Giving 3 years in a juvenile house for amending a juvenile fails on two fronts. Firstly, the reformatory homes are themselves inadequate. Callous attitude of officials and lack of oversight mar these institutes. They continue to be clouded with depressive feeling and thus do no good to a juvenile arrested. The maltreatment faced in process makes the boy a more hardened criminal or at least a defeated, lost human being, thus failing the very thought process and concern of the juvenile act. Secondly, does 3 years buy him enough penance? And most importantly will the society allow the reintegration of the boy with the mainstream, given that he went through just 3 years for such a dire crime. 

Death penalty would be regressive but 3 years is too less. Many more cases of rape have unleashed the debate of juvenile age. Recently one of the accused in Mumbai gang rape case is said to be juvenile. Seeing the increase in rapes and the role of such juveniles the law needs to be amended. 66.66% of juveniles arrested in 2012 were between 16-18. This can no longer be overlooked. Law needs to take urgent steps to help India regain the trust of its female population.

Often it is contested that the juveniles accused are mainly from poor sections of the society who have been torn by a childhood marred by poverty, illiteracy and abuses. But these conditions are prevalent for criminals above 18. Isn’t it?? Also when the much needed shift of attention focuses a victim one finds many of them too ridden by such a life and the rape horribly adds on to her existing miseries. The sate fails a juvenile both- before a crime and even after the crime. Just implementing the intermediary law strictly without support from right and left in place makes the overall desire for a society with lesser crime, a bleak prospect.

The adage which advises law to wipe out the crime and not the criminal should hold but the law needs to strike an urgent balance between the future of the criminal and the prospect of justice for the victim.