A teenager, who allegedly ran over a 32-year-old marketing executive while driving his father’s Mercedes in New Delhi in April, on Saturday sought in a Delhi court proper copies of some “deficient and illegible” documents supplied to him with the charge sheet.
Additional Sessions Judge Vimal Kumar Yadav directed the Delhi Police investigating officer to supply the required documents to the youth’s counsel.
The court also fixed July 21 for hearing arguments on framing of charges against the youth in the case sent to it by the Juvenile Justice Board which had held that the boy be tried as an adult.
Arguments on appeal filed by the boy, who had turned major four days after the April 4 incident, challenging the Board’s order to try him as an adult would also be heard on July 21.
The boy along with his parents was present in the court during the proceedings.
During the hearing, advocate Rajiv Mohan, who appeared for the youth, said the court should hear arguments on his appeal and on framing charges simultaneously.
Special Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastava said as per the amended provisions of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, the sessions court cannot send back the case to the board and if it thinks that the boy should not be tried as an adult, it has to try the case itself by acting as the board’s presiding officer.
{{/usCountry}}Special Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastava said as per the amended provisions of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, the sessions court cannot send back the case to the board and if it thinks that the boy should not be tried as an adult, it has to try the case itself by acting as the board’s presiding officer.
{{/usCountry}}Meanwhile, the counsel for victim Siddharth Sharma’s family sought copy of the appeal filed by the teenager.
In the appeal, the boy’s counsel claimed that at best he could be booked for alleged offence of causing death by rash and negligent act and it was not a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for which he has been charged.
It said the boy’s previous offences are of traffic violation and not related to accidents. So it’s not a ground to convert section 304A of IPC into section 304 of IPC.
The JJB had on June 4 ordered that the boy would face trial as an adult while observing that the offence allegedly committed by him was “heinous”.