HC allows youth booked under POCSO to be tried as adult | Mumbai news

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has allowed a Yavatmal-based man accused of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl in 2018 and helping his friends sexually assault the girl to be tried as an adult.

“He derived sadistic pleasure by exploiting the victim and throwing the victim into the hands of others,” the court said while dismissing the accused’s petition to appeal to the Yavatmal Juvenile Justice Board and considering the court’s decision to try him as an adult. The high court stated that the defendant, who was 17 at the time of the events, had sufficient mental and physical maturity to understand the seriousness of his actions and therefore warranted trial in an adult court.

The case arose from events that occurred in 2018, when the 14-year-old girl accused the 17-year-old boy and his accomplices of repeatedly sexually assaulting her. The boy was later detained under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act.

Initially, the juvenile justice board ordered that he be tried under juvenile justice provisions. However, upon the application of the girl’s father, the panel conducted a preliminary investigation, which found that the defendant was capable of understanding the nature of his actions and recommended that the defendant be tried as an adult. This decision was later confirmed by the additional trial court in Yavatmal, which led the accused to file a revision petition in the high court.

The prosecution, represented by lawyer AR Chutke, noted that the accused acted with clear intent and planning. The evidence presented included the defendant’s use of sedatives to subdue the victim, repeated sexual assaults over several months, and threats to her life to ensure silence. It was also revealed that the defendant involved others in the attacks and threatened to spread the sexual assault videos to the public. The prosecution argued that these actions reflected a high degree of maturity and awareness.

The defendant’s lawyer, Parvez Mirza, argued that JJB’s investigation violated procedural safeguards, including the legal timeline for conducting assessments. He argued that the psychiatrist and probation officer’s reports were inconclusive and failed to provide concrete evidence of the defendant’s ability to comprehend the consequences of his actions.

In the verdict, judge GA Sanap observed that the defendant’s actions were calculated and deliberate. He repeatedly assaulted the victim, manipulated her using sedatives, and facilitated further abuse by involving others. The court noted that reports from the psychiatrist found him to be stable, oriented and capable of understanding the consequences of his actions, and underlined his lack of remorse, which is indicative of a mature and deliberate state of mind.

The court concluded that the defendant’s actions reflected criminal intent and maturity and denied the revision petition, emphasizing the importance of balancing the rehabilitation goals of juvenile justice with the need for accountability for serious crimes.