Whether the accused Sunil Sharma (Age-16 yr.

Boy) can be treated as an adult for the

offence of Gang Rape?

1.1 Sunil sharma to be treated seperately

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
(CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) BILL, 2015 under section 15 says,
15. (1) 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, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of
subsection
The purpose of juvenile justice legislation, as laid down by the Supreme Court 1

The Act aims at grant of care, protection and rehabilitation of a juvenile vis-a-vis the adult
criminals. Having regard to Rule 4 of United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice, it must also be borne in mind that the moral and
psychological components of criminal responsibility was also one of the factors in defining a
juvenile. The first objective, therefore, is the promotion of the well-being of the juvenile and
the second objective bring about the principle of proportionality whereby and whereunder
the proportionality of the reaction to the circumstances of both the offender and the offence
including the victim should be safeguarded,

Sending delinquents aged between 16 and 18 years to adult prisons for seven years or more
will likely ensure that there is little chance of their reformation. Spending such a prolonged
period in jail with other criminals will make it hard for young delinquents to come out of the
cycle of crime and punishment.

The main purpose of the act is to reform Law has been silent on the position on juvenile of
the age 15 on the treatment as adult in heinous cases, so in the instant case we can come to a
conclusion that Sunil sharma cannot be treated as adult . the juvenile justice act has been
silent on a crime committed by an individual aged 15

A child, juvenile, a young person, who commits a crime should not be treated on par with
adult offenders. The mental frame of a juvenile, who commits a 'delinquent act' is different

1
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand
from the mental element of an adult accused. So, necessarily they have to be treated
differently.2

In the instant case Sunil sharma cannot be tried as adult with other offenders as the juvenile
justice act clearly states that only a juvenile of above the age of 16 can be treated as adult in
case of heinous crime such as rape, murder etc. although the crime committed by Sunil
sharma (gang rape) come under the ambit of heinous crime where juvenile can be treated as
adult, here in this case Sunil sharma is 15 years of age and does not come under the preview
of juvenile justice act.

1.2 If Sunil sharma tried as adult it would be violative of this fundamental right.

Article143. Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

“the right to equality in the Constitution of India is not merely a negative right not to
be discriminated against but also a positive right to be treated as an equal. Under the
later aspect of the right, which is the essence and core of the right to equality, the State
is under the obligation to take necessary steps so that every individual is given equal
respect and concern which he is entitled to as a human being.”

In Re Special Courts Bill, 1978, Chandrachud, J., observed: “The underlying principle of the
guarantee of Art. 14 was that all persons similarly circumstanced should be treated alike both
in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.”

The learned ASG submitted that in various judgments, this Court and the High Courts had
recognised the fact that juveniles were required to be treated differently from adults so as to
give such children, who for some reason had gone astray, an opportunity to realize their
mistakes and to rehabilitate themselves and rebuild their lives. 4

The juvenile, as per the order passed under Sub-section 3 of Section 18 of the Act is mature
enough to face the trial as an adult. The contention of counsel for the complainant is that

2
Jayavel vs The State Rep
3
Constitution of India
4
Salil Bali vs Union Of India & Anr
since the juvenile will now be treated as an adult, the sentence would be different than that
which would be passed against a juvenile.5

Article 14 does not mean that all laws must be general in character or that the same laws
should apply to all persons or that every law must have universal application, for, all persons
are not, by nature, attainment or circumstances, in the same positions. The State can treat
different persons differently if circumstances justify such treatment. In fact, identical
treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality. The legislature must possess
the power to group persons, objects and transactions with a view to attaining specific aims.
So, a reasonable classification is not permitted but necessary if society is to progress.6

In the instant case if Sunil sharma (aged about 15 years) is not treated as juvenile under the
juvenile justice act of 2015, it would be contradictive of the Article 14 of the Constitution, as
article 14 provides equal protection of laws, also in the instant case Sunil Sharma cannot be
brought under the ambit of reasonable classification of Article 14.

1.3 Should not further decrease the age of criminality in India

The present amendment has reduced the age of juvenile offenders to be tried as adults from
18 to 16,But there are 15-year-old teens also who are accused of rape. There are 14-year-old
murderers. Thus, how important is age really? Let’s say if a family plans to take revenge
against another family, they might decide to make their 15-year-old perpetrate the crime,
knowing he'll be released at the age of 18.

Assuming that a person at the age of 16 is sent to life imprisonment, he would be released
sometimes in the mid-30s. There is little assurance that the convict would emerge a reformed
person, who will not commit the same crime that he was imprisoned for. Our jails do not
have reformatory and rehabilitation policies. We do not engage with inmates as human
beings. We do not bring about transformation. We, therefore, breed more criminals including
juveniles) in our prison and reformatory system by ghettoing them in juvenile homes and
protective homes where they are told that the State will protect and provide for them, but
which promise is a fruitless one.7

5
Neelam Joshi vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr
6
Re Special Courts Bill
7
Justice J.S Verma Committee report 2015
Article 1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (CRC), defines a child in the
following terms:

For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of
eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.

Whereas Article 37(a) reads as: State Parties shall ensure that: (a) No child shall be subjected to
torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment
nor life imprisonment without possibility of shall be imposed for offences committed by persons
below eighteen years of age.

the objective with which the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, was
enacted was not aimed at delivering retributive justice, but to allow a rehabilitative,
reformation-oriented approach in addressing juvenile crimes.8

Would reducing the age of crime would not provide for a proper solution a better solution
would be to bring about reformation in juvenile reformation system of India better juvenile
homes,

I am of the view that the 3-year period (for which delinquent children are kept in the custody
of special home) is cause for correction with respect to the damage done to the personality of
the child also in the instant case Sunil sharma should be given a maximum of 3 year of
punishment

In the case of a juvenile in conflict with law, the Act provided that the Board
shall obtain a social investigation report on juvenile and shall take into
consideration the same before passing any order. The Act provided for a wide
range of reformatiative measures under ss. 15 and 16 for children in conflict
with law – from simple admonition to maximum 3 years of institutionalisation
in a Special Home.

8
Hari Ram vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr