Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Murder Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has firmly rejected a plea to try a woman as an adult for the alleged murder of her mother-in-law. Justice Sanjay Vashistha delivered the ruling, emphasizing the accused's young age and early marriage at the time of the crime.
Court Cites Tender Age and Developmental Stage
Justice Vashistha highlighted the "tender age" of the accused, who was just 17 years and 19 days old when the incident occurred. The court noted that her cognitive and emotional faculties were still developing. No child of such age could make proper independent decisions, the judge observed in the January 12 order.
The court also pointed to her early marriage, which happened when she was less than 15 years old. This context played a crucial role in the decision. Her current mental capacity does not reflect her state of mind at the time of the alleged offence, Justice Vashistha stated.
Legal Framework and Delayed Assessment
The case revolves around the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015. This law requires a preliminary assessment of a juvenile's mental and physical capacity to commit an offence. It also assesses their ability to understand the consequences.
However, in this instance, the preliminary assessment was delayed by nearly four years. By the time it occurred, the accused had already attained the age of majority. The court found this delay significant in its reasoning.
Background of the Case
The incident dates back to June 23, 2020. Following a domestic quarrel, the daughter-in-law allegedly poured kerosene oil on her mother-in-law and set her on fire. The victim succumbed to her injuries in July 2020, leading to murder charges under Section 302 of the IPC.
Both the Juvenile Justice Board and the trial court had previously ruled that the accused should be treated as a juvenile. The son of the victim, who is also the husband of the accused, challenged these orders in the High Court.
Court's Detailed Reasoning
Justice Vashistha elaborated that assessment under Section 15 of the Act is not a mechanical exercise. It involves a crucial determination of psychological, social, and emotional aspects. The court must assess a child's culpability potential comprehensively.
After considering the factual matrix in totality, the High Court found no illegality in the JJB's 2024 order. The trial court's detailed and well-reasoned judgment from October 2025 also received affirmation.
As a result, the criminal revision petition was dismissed for lacking merit. The High Court's decision reinforces the protective intent of juvenile justice laws in India.
