Providing justice for juveniles – The Hindu

RIn addition, the Supreme Court of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. The year 200093 emphasizes the important role that police and peace judges should play in the definition of child criminals at the beginning of a criminal case. He reiterated the need for alertness when he was conscious of crimes containing children. The Court stressed that the appropriate identity may prevent incorrect imprisonment of non -disregards with adults.

Karthik, who was convicted of killing Muniyappa, was the second defendant in the case when his father was the first defendant. The evidence showed that Muniyappa was dealing with Karthik’s sister Chaitra without the approval of the family. He kept a grudge against both Karthik and his father Muniyappa, and more than one witness confirmed their participation in crime.

When the issue reached the appeal court, the childhood issue was brought to the agenda. Pursuant to the established legal principles, at any stage of the proceedings – even after the hearing is concluded, a childhood claim can be made. Childhood refers to the claim that the accused was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime, in which case the individual must be tried within the scope of the Juvenil Justice (Care and Protection of Children) within the scope of 2015 (JJ Law).

In this case, the crime occurred in 2011, when the 2000 JJ Law entered into force. Although childhood was opened in 2023, the Supreme Court announced that the law that was valid during the crime should be valid according to the 25th part of the 2015 JJ Law. The court said that if the police or the magistrate had paid more attention during the arrest and hearing, Karthik could be defined as a child and could be placed under the children’s justice system. Instead, he spent 13 years in an adult prison – a serious justice is low.

The JJ Law is obliged to be submitted in front of the Children’s Justice Board (JJB). Unfortunately, in many cases, children are wrongly treated as adults and are placed in prisons where they are subjected to sexual violence, sexual abuse and where they are at risk of being hardened. The court accepted the violation of Karthik’s rights, and was sentenced to 13 years in prison for compensation for 50,000 ₹. If it had been produced before JJB, it would have served for a maximum of three years in a child’s house.

In a precedent movement, the court ordered the additional registration officer to hold the rank of a session judge to make the investigation on the allegation of childhood. This enabled the issue to be handled quickly and with the necessary judicial authority. The court also enabled the decision to be submitted to the JJ Supreme Court Committee and strengthened the need for systemic awareness and reform.

The newly appointed members and presidents of JJBS must now be sensitive to 2025 to the rules of the updated Karnataka children’s justice (maintenance and protection). In addition, police officials, defenders, peace judges and judges of the children’s courts should be thoroughly informed about the rules of 2025.

Most of the time, they are treated as adults despite their satisfaction because they are not respected to children. In many cases, peace judges reject them with bail and may have long -term effects of psychological trauma of being placed in an adult prison. There were also cases where children arrested with adult criminals were treated as adults and placed behind railings instead of observation houses for children.

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Patna accepted a childhood claim that emerged 32 years after the alleged crime.

In another decision on the penal appeal of 2018, the Supreme Court emphasized that a stimulating approach should be adopted when a childhood claim was brought to the agenda. In this case, the appealed person relied on a transfer certificate to support the childhood claim. However, the court reiterated that the determination of the age should be based on the documents specified within the scope of the JJ Law. The other official records showed that the individual was not small at the time of the crime, the court rejected the childhood objection.

The aim of the JJ Law is to provide rehabilitation and a reformative environment that allows children to be integrated into the society. This main objective is weakened when minors are sent to adult prisons.

Names have been changed to protect the identity. Geeta Sajjanshetty, Karnataka Supreme Court, Kalaburagi counter and former Children’s Justice Board Member Kalaburagi

Published – 11 August 2025 01:13