ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

2. Whether it was justifiable for the Juvenile Justice Board to trial the defendants as
adults given their age at the time of the crime and their ability to understand the Juvenile
Justice Board's actions ?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High court of Kedar that PEPC's argument
revolves around the delicate balance between justice and rehabilitation, especially when dealing with
youthful offenders. Firstly, it's imperative to acknowledge the tragic circumstances under which the
defendants, particularly Amar, Ayan, Anthony, and Surjeet, grew up. Their environments were rife
with adversity, including absent or abusive parental figures, poverty, and lack of educational
opportunities.

Further It is humbly submitted that, their upbringing, while explaining their involvement in
criminal activities, should also serve as a mitigating factor in their treatment by the justice system. The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2012, which mirrors its Indian counterpart,
recognizes the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration into society for juvenile offenders. This
approach prioritizes the best interests of the child while holding them accountable for their actions.

It is humbly submitted that in the case of the defendants, their ages at the time of the crime
are crucial. Amar, the oldest, was 18 years and 12 days old, while the others were still minors, aged
between 16 and 17. Despite their involvement in criminal behavior, their youthfulness and the
extenuating circumstances of their upbringing must be taken into account.

The decision of the Juvenile Justice Board to try them as adults raises questions about the
application of the law and the principles it embodies. The Board's decision should have been guided
not only by the severity of the crime but also by the defendants' capacity for rehabilitation and their
developmental stage at the time of the offense.

It is Submitted that In support of this argument, PEPC cite relevant cases from India where
similar issues were addressed. For instance, the case of "Jyoti Singh Pandey"1 highlighted the need
for a nuanced approach to juvenile justice, considering factors such as socio-economic background,
mental health, and vulnerability to influence.

1
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Mukesh and Others (2013) 14 SCC 32
Furthermore, the alignment of Kedar's legal framework with that of India provides an
opportunity to draw on precedents from Indian courts. Cases such as "Gopinath Ghosh v. State
of West Bengal2" underscore the importance of individualized assessments of juvenile offenders
and the need to prioritize rehabilitation over punitive measures.
It is Humbly submitted that In the case of M. Sudhakar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 3
the Supreme Court reiterated the principles of proportionality and fairness in sentencing juvenile
offenders. The court emphasized the need for specialized treatment and rehabilitation programs
tailored to the individual needs of juvenile offenders to ensure their successful reintegration into
society. This underscores contention for a rehabilitative rather than punitive approach towards
juvenile offenders.
In the Case of Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 4Allahabad High Court emphasized the
need for individualized assessments of juvenile offenders' circumstances and culpability. The
court held that blanket approaches to treating juvenile offenders as adults without considering
their specific backgrounds and vulnerabilities are unjust and contrary to the principles of juvenile
justice. Similarly, in the present case, the defendants' traumatic upbringing and lack of proper
guidance should have been taken into account before subjecting them to adult trials and
punishments.
It is Humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that while the crime committed by the
defendants is undeniably grave, their age at the time of the offense and the circumstances of their
upbringing necessitate a thoughtful and compassionate approach to justice. The Juvenile Justice
Board's decision to try them as adults may have been well-intentioned, but it overlooks the
fundamental principles of juvenile justice and the potential for rehabilitation. PEPC urges the
High Court to reconsider this decision in light of the defendants' youth and the principles
enshrined in the Juvenile Justice Act.

2
Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 1984 AIR 237
3
M. Sudhakar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 4 SCC 776
4
Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 10 SCC 209