BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH VIDULA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISPUTE RELATING TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT

(CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN), 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE MATTERS OF

PEOPLE FOR THE EDUCATION AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (PEPC)

………………… APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF SOUTH VIDULA ………………… RESPONDENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH VIDULA

UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF VIDULA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1 Index of authorities 3
2 Table of abbreviations 4
3 Statement of jurisdiction 5
4 Statement of facts 6
5 Issues raised 8
6 Summary of arguments 9
7 Arguments advanced 11
8 Prayer 15

2|Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
 The Constitution of Vidula,
 The Vidula Penal Code,
 The Criminal Procedure Code,
 The Law of Evidence
 The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2012

RELEVANT CASE LAWS:-

 Sanjay Suri v. Delhi Administration - AIR 1986 SC 414
 Jayendra v. State of UP - AIR 1982 SC 685
 Munna v. State of UP - AIR 1982 SC 806
 Bhoop Ram v. State of UP - AIR 1987 SC 1329
 Raj Singh v. State of Haryana - 2000 (6) SCC 759
 Arnit Das v. State of Bihar - AIR 2000 SC 2264
 Raj Singh v. State of Haryana - (2000) 6 SCC 759
 Radhika (Juvenile) vs State Of U.P. on 5 August, 2019
 Nirbhaya case [Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1 :(2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 673]
 Salil Bali Vs Union Of India, (2013) 7 Scc 705

3|Page
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS:-

& And
AIR All India Reporter
Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal
CRC Convention of the Rights of the Child
Govt. Government
Hon‟ble Honourable
i.e That is
JJ Juvenile Justice
NCT National Capital Territory
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
v. Versus

4|Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:-

The Petitioners have approached the Hon‟ble High Court of South Vidula under Article 226
& 227 of the Constitution of Vidula. The Respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of
this Hon‟ble Court.

5|Page
STATEMENT OF FACTS:-

 Amar, Akbar, Anthony and Surjeet have grown up in tough conditions in the Pluto
district of South Vidula. While Amar and Anthony have never known their fathers,
Akbar comes from an abusive household. Surjeet is an orphan who has grown up on the
streets. He was in and out of a few orphanages till the age of 10, after which he lived only
off the streets.
 Amar, Akbar, Anthony and Surjeet were not known to each other in their early teens, the
four boys met at a local playground. Soon, they began spending more time together. They
began consuming alcohol and slowly moved on to cheap drugs.
 In 2013, by the time they were 14, they were a notorious gang who committed several
petty offences in order to fund their drug habit. They were infamously known as the
“baccha gang”.
 They mainly focused on shop lifting, pick pocketing, stealing petrol, cycles and footwear
from outside religious places, etc.
 Police had caught them a few times, they were never arrested and were always let free,
primarily owing to their age. The police did maintain a roster of known offenders and as
such, the names of the four boys had been entered on this roster as petty thieves in the
BB Nagar police station in Pluto.
 In early 2012, the “Baccha Gang” befriended and included within their fold, a 12 years
old boy by the name of Sam. His parents had recently divorced and he was a disturbed
child looking for a sense of belonging and family.
 Initially, Sam had no idea that the gang involved itself in criminal activity. He could be
found playing with the four boys in the maidaan, and spending the entire day with them.
He stopped going to school and would spend the whole day with them at times.
Sometimes, they made him carry strange looking paper bags in his school bag.
 By June 2012, Sam had realized the full extent of the gang’s activities and was not
comfortable being with them. He slowly and surely started distancing himself from the
gang.
 By August of 2012, he rarely saw the baccha gang. This did not go well with Amar, the
eldest of the four boys. He told the rest of them that they needed to make sure Sam learnt
a lesson and mended his ways.

6|Page
 On the night of the 5th of January, 2013, at around 7 PM, the baccha gang met Sam at
Kila laal tea stall. After a brief talk, they all left, going towards the woods that were on
the outskirts of Pluto.
 On the Morning of 6th, Sam’s mother, along with her father, approached the BB Nagar
Police to file a report about a missing person. They said that Sam had left home around 5
in the evening and had not yet returned.
 The police launched a manhunt and after 2 days the body of Sam was found in the woods
surrounding Pluto. An autopsy revealed that he had died of severe injury to the head and
the body was identified by clothes and a school ID in the pant pocket. No evidence was
found, no suspects were arrested and the matter cooled down.
 On June 21st, 2015, Amar was arrested on charge of robbery. During a search that
followed, a notebook belonging to Sam and a few photos of Sam and his family were
recovered from his residence. It came to know that, on the night of the murder, the
baccha gang were the last to see Sam and they had al left for the woods together. Akbar,
Anthony and Surjeet were arrested immediately and they were all booked for murder.
 On the date of the murder, Amar was 18 years and 12 days, Akbar was 17 years and 350
days, Anthony was 17 years and 5 days. Surjeet was 16 years and 200 days old. They
were all over the age of 20 on the date of arrest.
 According to Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 three boys
aged below 18 but above 16 at the time of alleged commission of the crime, were sent
before the Juvenile Justice Board, who had to decide if or not, they were to be tried as
adults. The Boys vehemently denied any involvement in the murder of Sam.
 The Board, with the help of eminent psychologists and psychiatrists, determined that the
boys were well aware of their actions and capable of being tried as adults and
accordingly committed the matter to the Sessions court at Pluto, since no special
children’s court had been established.
 The Sessions court found all three boys guilty of the murder of Sam and the Judge
commented that it was a fit case for life imprisonment but since his hands were tied by
the law, he sentenced them to 8 years of Rigorous imprisonment each.
 Amar, on the other hand, was tried as an adult by the Sessions court, as he was over the
age of 18 on the date of commission of the offence. He was found guilty of the torture
and brutal murder of Sam and sentenced to life imprisonment in prison, with life meaning
life.

7|Page
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:-

1) Whether the petition in the present case is maintainable before the Hon’ble High Court is
maintainable?

2) Whether the juvenility will depend upon the nature of offence committed as in the existing
scenario as most of the juveniles are engaged in horrendous and heinous crimes like murder,
robbery and drug etc?

3) Whether the Provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection Of Children) Act, 2012
classifying among Juveniles are within the ambit of Constitutional and International
Provisions.

4) The proceedings of session court is valid and be upheld.

8|Page
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:-

1) Whether the petition in the present case is maintainable before the Hon’ble High
Court is maintainable?

The petition filed in the Hon’ble High Court is not maintainable as: firstly, there existed an
efficacious alternative remedy and secondly, it is not maintainable on account of non-
contravention of any fundamental right.
In the present case accused where tried in accordance to the provisions of law and when
found guilty were sentenced as per the provisions Juvenile Justice and Code of Criminal
Procedure. The matter of the petition is ineligible to be tried by the High Court as there has
been no injustice being served by the lower courts.

2) Whether the juvenility will depend upon the nature of offence committed as in the
existing scenario as most of the juveniles are engaged in horrendous and heinous
crimes like murder, robbery and drug etc?

The juvenility should not depend on the nature of offence committed as in the present case:
firstly, there is no ambiguous meaning in the different provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2012. Secondly, the act is not violative of any Constitutional or Criminal Law Provisions and
thirdly, the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility is fixed and is in consonance with the
International Commitments.

3) Whether the Provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection Of Children) Act,
2012 classifying among Juveniles are within the ambit of Constitutional and
International Provisions.

Punishing the child in conflict with law is the failure of the society at large in providing the
child with adequate care and protection, and by creating a fictional classification between the
children belonging to age group of 12-18 years on the basis of degree of crime "allegedly"
committed by them would abandon the conventions entered by India instead of sticking to it.

9|Page
The act is in consonance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which is a
comprehensive and internationally binding agreement on the rights of children.
There is a steep rise in heinous crime rates by these category of juveniles and several nations
like U.K, U.S.A have adopted this stricter policy to check these crimes. The provisions of
Juveniles Justice Act are within the ambit of the constitution provisions and international
conventions and hence are valid.

4) The proceedings of session court is valid and be upheld.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the Session courts are empowered
to deal with the cases of Juveniles between the age of 16 – 18 years for heinous offences, if
on the assessment the court is satisfied that the juvenile has sufficient physical and mental
capacity to commit such crime.
It is humbly pleaded before the Hon’ble court that the decision of lower courts should be
allowed to stand.

10 | P a g e
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:-

1) Whether the petition in the present case is maintainable before the Hon’ble High
Court is maintainable?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court of Vidula that the Petition filed by
People for the Education and Protection of Children (PEPC) are not maintainable as
substantial justice has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to
be maintainable. Since, the laws are certain about the case and there is no substantial question
of law, the case cannot be held to be an exceptional one.

It is humbly submitted that the constitutional validity of Juvenile Justice Act was upheld in
the case of Salil bali v. Union of India, therefore the act is well within the ambit of
constitution and is not violative of any Fundamental right. Hence, the writ petition to this
regard cannot be maintainable.

In the present case accused where tried in accordance to the provisions of law and when
found guilty were sentenced as per the provisions Juvenile Justice and Code of Criminal
Procedure. The matter of the petition is ineligible to be tried by the Hon’ble High Court as
there has been no injustice being served by the lower courts.

Therefore, after examining the case, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court
that the petition filed by the Petitioners are not maintainable.

In the case at hand, no exceptional and special circumstances have been shown by the
petitioners. Laws related to minors are clearly mentioned in the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act. The powers conferred to Hon’ble High Court under Article 226
should be exercised only in some exceptional cases and the present case is made out,
therefore should be dismissed without wasting the precious time of Hon’ble High Court.

2) Whether the juvenility will depend upon the nature of offence committed as in
the existing case juveniles are engaged in horrendous and heinous crimes like
murder, robbery, drug etc?

11 | P a g e
It is submitted that the legislature has adopted the age of 18 as the dividing line between
juveniles and adults and such a decision is constitutionally permissible, so the enquiry from
courts must come to an end. The juvenile here has an undisputed age of 18 years. This age
has constitutional relevance to protect the interest of juveniles from the Criminal liability
under the Vidula Penal Code.

In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or
is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with
regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the
consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the
offence,

It is further submitted that in the case State of Tamil Nadu v. Shyam Sunder, the court opined
that it is the duty of the legislature to make laws and court must not interfere in the work of
legislature. Further it was held that, to make an act as Ultra Vires or to make any amendment
in it the relevant act or provision as the case maybe must be proved violate of the fundamental
rights.

It is urged that accused has also involved in many case of Robbery and drugs. Same is
available in police records. Therefore, juvenility will also depend upon the nature of offence
committed.

It is urged that laws are considered and studied instruments of justice; they cannot be based
on a specific instance alone, and it is the duty of the court to ask itself whether good law and
good justice can ever be born out of an impulsive reaction.

3) Whether the Provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection Of Children) Act,
2012 classifying among Juveniles are within the ambit of Constitutional and
International Provisions.

It is humbly submitted that the separate treatment of Juveniles charged for heinous offences is
within the principles of Article 14 of the act. As, the article provides for equal protection of
law in equal circumstances. Section 15 of the act lays down that if a child of age 16 – 18
years is found in conflict with law for committing a heinous offence and has sufficient mental

12 | P a g e
and physical capacity to commit such crime he will be prosecuted under the provisions of the
act that is the trail of the child will be conducted similar to the trail of the adult by the
children court. The children with mental and physical capability to commit the heinous crime
are the serious deterrents unlike the other children and therefore there arises a need for a
stricter trail so as to rehabilitate them in an effective way.

The JJ Act seeks to rehabilitate the juveniles in an effective way. The provisions of section 15
of the act apply a stricter approach on offenders aged 16 – 18 years, charged for heinous
crimes as they are capable of committing heinous crimes and are hardened offenders and can
be effectively rehabilitated by stricter provisions. The respondent submits that even if the
legislature makes any special provisions for children it won’t be unconstitutional and is not
discriminatory in nature. The act objects for welfare of children in need of help or in found to
be in conflict with law. The special treatment of children charged for heinous offence is in
pursuance of the objective of the Juvenile justice system that is reformation of juveniles and
making them able to live a dignified life as protected under Article 21.

It is humbly pleaded before the Hon’ble court that such juveniles should be treated by stricter
procedure as they have similar capability to that of an adult to commit a crime. Their
reformation can only be achieved if they are given a stricter treatment because of their
extreme violent nature and capability equal to an adult to commit crime.

The section 15 of the JJ act, 2015 deals with such offenders who have capacity to understand
the nature and consequence of their act and have sufficient capacity to commit the crime.
Providing protection to them would be abuse of law and against the society. To control the
increasing rate of crimes in the society by such juveniles of age 16 – 18 years it is necessary
that these provisions should be upheld. It is also important for the reformation of these
juveniles who are hardened and should be treated strictly. Therefore based on this rationale,
there is nothing wrong in treating juveniles of age 16 – 18 years who have sufficient maturity
to commit such heinous crime and it is scientifically sensible and harmless. These provisions
also protect the society from such deterrent juveniles.

 In New York and North Carolina the minimum age at which all accused personsare
chargedasadul ts is 13.

13 | P a g e
 In Canada, the juveniles aged between 12 – 18 years who commit serious offence can be
treated as an adult.
 In United Kingdom children between 10–18 years can be tried by Crown Courts.
 In Michigan & Texas minimum age is 17.
 In Washington, the minimum age depends on the severity of the crime.

In view of the above it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the provisions of
the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 are not violative of any constitutional provisions and are in
pursuance of the objective of the juvenile justice system that is reformation of juveniles in
conflict with law. The JJ act, 2015 in no way hampers the rights of the juveniles and is valid
and should be upheld.

4) The proceedings of session court is valid and be upheld.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the Children Court established in Session
court and High Court are empowered to deal with the cases of Juveniles between the age of
16 – 18 years for heinous offences, if on the assessment the court is satisfied that the juvenile
has sufficient physical and mental capacity to commit such crime. Therefore, the petitioner’s
plea that Session court didn’t had any jurisdiction to try his case is immaterial.

The Prosecution humbly contends that both, the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea of the crime
are established in the instant matter, negating any claims of petitioner. Actusreus is any
wrongful act. Thus, in a case of murder, actusreus would be the physical Conduct of the
accused that causes death of the victim. Mens rea is considered as guilty intention, which is
proved or inferred from the acts of the accused. It is submitted that the intention to kill is
established in light of clear-cut motive of the accused. Therefore, the respondent humbly
submits that the High Court would be justified in convicting the accused as the evidence on
records show that accused are guilty and should be treated like an adult as they were having
sufficient capacity to commit crime.

It is humbly pleaded before the Hon’ble High Court that the decision of lower courts should
be allowed to stand.

14 | P a g e
 PRAYER
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENT ADVANCED,

REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO::
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO HOLD

THE ORDER OF CONVICTION OF AMAR, AKBAR, ANTHONY AND SURJEET BY

SESSION COURT.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO DIRECT

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY PETITIONER SHOULD BE DISMISSED.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MISCELLANEOUS

AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
GRANT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Sd/-
……………………….
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

15 | P a g e