The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed a petition from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking transfer of trial into murder of a seven-year-old student of a Gurugram school to Panchkula.
A Class 2 student of a prominent school in Gurugram’s Bhondsi was found dead inside the school washroom on September 8, 2017. Haryana Police, which initially investigated the murder, arrested the conductor of a school bus the same day, and said that he had confessed to the crime. However, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which took over the case in November 2017 apprehended the accused, who was studying in Class 11 of the same school, on November 7.
In December 2017, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) decided to treat the accused as an adult. However, the high court, in October 2018 directed the board to make a fresh assessment. Both, the victim’s father and CBI, moved the Supreme Court (SC), arguing that the high court’s move was wrong and illegal. In July 2022, the apex court said that while considering a person an adult, one should look at their physical maturity, cognitive abilities, and social and emotional competencies.
Subsequently, the JJB also took help of Institute of Mental Health, University of Health Sciences, (PGIMS), Rohtak in the matter and in October 2022 held that the boy is to be tried as an adult. The trial is underway at a Gurugram court.
{{/usCountry}}Subsequently, the JJB also took help of Institute of Mental Health, University of Health Sciences, (PGIMS), Rohtak in the matter and in October 2022 held that the boy is to be tried as an adult. The trial is underway at a Gurugram court.
{{/usCountry}}CBI’s petition was pending since 2018. It had argued that CBI has an exclusive court of special judge at Panchkula having jurisdiction all over Haryana. There is also an exclusive court of special judicial magistrate for CBI cases of Haryana at Panchkula. Since the case has been investigated by the CBI, the Panchkula court has exclusive jurisdiction to try it, in view of the different notifications issued by the registrar general of high court and the Haryana government.
The bench of justice Manisha Batra held that Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 does not merely prescribe a territorial forum. “It specifically directs transfer of the trial to the children’s court having jurisdiction to try such offences. Applying the same reasoning, the requirement of Section 18(3) of the JJ Act that the trial of a child directed to be tried as an adult must be held by a children’s court is a sine qua non (mandatory requirement),” it said adding that the power of transfer of trial can be exercised only within that limit.
“The trial can, at the most, be transferred from one children’s court to another children’s court, if a case for the same is made out. It cannot be transferred to a court which does not answer the description of a children’s court,” it added.
It further added that crime took place in Gurugram, the family of the deceased and accused are all located there. The trial is going on before the children’s court at Gurugram. Moreover, the CBI did not seek stay of the proceedings and the trial has thus progressed for several years.
“Any transfer at this advanced stage would only delay the trial further. It would not be in the interest of the prosecution, the family of the deceased or respondent No. 2 (accused),” it said.
The court also held that the court of special judge, CBI, Panchkula has not been vested with any exclusive jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Merely because it has been investigated by the CBI. The notification of 2012 the agency is referring to is confined to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it added.
Now the court has directed that the additional sessions judge-cum-children’s court, Gurugram would proceed with the trial and make every endeavour to conclude it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months, subject to cooperation by the parties. The court also directed the CBI to ensure the presence of its witnesses on the dates fixed by the trial court. The trial court may record the evidence of official and outstation witnesses through video conferencing, it further said.