In the first prosecution under the amended Juvenile Justice Act, the teenager accused in the Mercedes hit-and-run case, who had turned 18 four days after the accident which claimed life of a 33-year-old marketing executive in April this year, will be tried as an adult.
The presiding officer of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) on Saturday passed an order on the application of the Delhi Police seeking to try the accused as an adult, as the offence came under the definition of heinous crime.
The police had told the JJB that the teenager was a repeat offender and that he had a history of traffic violations which included over-speeding and he was booked for it on June 17, 2015.
He was also booked for driving in violation of traffic regulations on February 25, 2014 and for not wearing a seat belt on September 19, 2014.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2015 allows for juveniles 16 years or older to be tried as adults for heinous offences like rape and murder. The Act was amended following public outrage after one of the offenders in the December 16, 2012 gangrape case escaped being tried in the court as he was a few months short of 18.
In its order, the JJ Board said that the accused had the ability to understand the consequences of the offence while committing the crime. The minor accused was in no manner lacking in mental and physical capacity to commit the alleged offence and on the date of incident he had the ability to understand the consequences of the offence, it added.
The board further said that the accused drove very fast and dangerously despite warning of his friends, who were co-occupants of his car at the time of incident. Besides, he did not help the victim and did not even stop after the mishap. Rather, he fled from the spot to avoid getting caught for his misdeed, said the court order.
The court observed that his conduct before and after the incident clearly reflected that he understood the offence alleged against him. The circumstances collectively indicate that he was indifferent towards life and safety of other users of the road but mature enough to think of ways to escape from lawful punishment of the offence.
The psychologist in its report dated May 25 also indicated that he has mature mind, although having immature problem solving skills where he gave a measured, inadequate and evasive replies.
Initially, the boy was booked under IPC Sections 304 A (causing death by rash or negligent act) but later on he was booked for the alleged offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sent to the reform home.
In its chargesheet, the police had said that the boy was driving at least 80 km per hour and had fatally run over victim Siddharth Sharma with his father’s Mercedes when Sharma was trying to cross a road near ludlow Castle School in north Delhi on April 4.
He was chargsheeted under IPC Sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 279 (driving on a public way so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life) and 337 (causing hurt by an act which endangers human life) against him.