New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday noticed that it has began gathering an impression that the leniency with which the juveniles are handled within the identify of purpose of reformation is making them increasingly emboldened in indulging in heinous crimes.

A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and J.B. Pardiwala stated: “We would like to observe that the rising rate of juvenile delinquency in India is a matter of concern and requires immediate attention.”

The bench stated there’s a college of thought, present in our nation that firmly believes that howsoever heinous the crime could also be, be it single rape, gangrape, drug peddling or homicide but when the accused is a juvenile, he ought to be handled retaining in thoughts just one factor i.e., the purpose of reformation.

“The school of thought we are talking about believes that the goal of reformation is ideal. The manner in which brutal and heinous crimes have been committed over a period of time by the juveniles and still continue to be committed, makes us wonder whether the Act, 2015 (Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015) has subserved its object,” it stated.

The prime court docket made these observations whereas ruling that Shubam Sangra — a key accused within the sensational gang-rape and homicide of an eight-year-old nomadic woman in J&Ok’s Kathua in 2018 — was not a minor on the time of the offence and he ought to be tried as an grownup. The prime court docket put aside the order handed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, stated: “We have started gathering an impression that the leniency with which the juveniles are dealt with in the name of goal of reformation is making them more and more emboldened in indulging in such heinous crimes. It is for the government to consider whether its enactment of 2015 has proved to be effective or something still needs to be done in the matter before it is too late in the day.”

The bench famous that the advantage of the precept of benevolent laws hooked up to the Juvenile Justice Act can be prolonged to solely such instances whereby the accused is held to be a juvenile on the idea of a minimum of prima facie proof inspiring confidence concerning his minority as the advantage of the chances of two views in regard to the age.

Meanwhile, within the current case, it stated the guilt or the innocence of the accused shall be decided strictly on the idea of the proof that could be led by the prosecution and the defence on the time of the trial. “All observations made in this judgment are meant only for the purpose of deciding the issue of juvenility,” the bench stated.

(Except for the headline, the story has not been edited by Siasat employees and is revealed from a syndicated feed.)