Case at a Glance
A seven-year-old student was killed in a school washroom in Gurugram on 8 September 2017. The CBI, which took over the investigation, charge-sheeted a then-juvenile Class XI student, whom the Juvenile Justice Board directed to be tried as an adult. The CBI asked the High Court to move his trial from the Children’s Court, Gurugram, to the CBI Special Court at Panchkula. The High Court refused: CBI investigation does not change the trial forum, the Juvenile Justice Act makes the Children’s Court the exclusive forum, and no reasonable apprehension of an unfair trial was shown. It asked the Gurugram court to try to finish the trial within six months.
After the killing on 8 September 2017, the Gurugram police registered an FIR and made arrests. Haryana consented to a CBI probe on 17 September 2017 and the Centre issued a notification under Sections 5(1) and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act on 22 September 2017. The CBI apprehended a Class XI student of the school, below 18 at the time of the offence, on 7 November 2017 and charge-sheeted him under Section 302 IPC in February 2018. The Juvenile Justice Board ordered that he be tried as an adult; after a remand by the High Court (upheld by the Supreme Court in 2022), the Board again so ordered on 17 October 2022, and challenges to that order failed. His trial is before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children’s Court, Gurugram, while proceedings against adult accused, including police officials, are pending before the CBI Special Court, Panchkula.
The CBI argued that, being the prosecuting agency, its cases are tried at the Panchkula CBI court, that evidence in the two trials overlaps and that moving records and prosecution teams was burdensome; alternatively, it sought transfer to a Children’s Court at Panchkula. It relied on Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra. The State had no objection, and the victim’s father supported the plea. The juvenile’s counsel argued that only a Children’s Court can try him and that transfer at this stage would cause delay.
The Key Question Before the Court
When the CBI investigates a murder in which a child in conflict with law is to be tried as an adult, can the trial be moved to the CBI Special Court — or must it remain with the Children’s Court under the Juvenile Justice Act?
Why the trial stays in Gurugram
The Court held that the DSPE Act notifications only authorise investigation — “Both these notifications deal only with the power to investigate the case” — and the 2012 notification appointing the Panchkula CBI judge covers Prevention of Corruption Act offences: it “does not appoint the Special Judge for the trial of every case investigated by the CBI.” Under Section 18(3) read with the non obstante clause in Section 1(4) of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Children’s Court is the forum, and “The legislature has not left the choice of forum to the investigating agency.” Section 19 safeguards (child-friendly process, individual care plan, place of safety) apply only in a Children’s Court, and Section 23 bars joint proceedings of a child with an adult. Following Thirumoorthy v. State, (2024) 03 SC CK 0060 and Sagar v. State of Haryana, the Court said Section 19 procedure is mandatory. It distinguished Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra and held, relying on Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, that consent cannot confer jurisdiction — so the State’s no-objection did not help.
On transfer under Section 407 CrPC, the Court applied Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu, Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan, Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani and Captain Amarinder Singh v. Prakash Singh Badal: “The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary.” There was no allegation of bias or collusion, the trial was advanced, and witnesses, the family and the school were in Gurugram (citing Mrudul M. Damle v. CBI). The CBI’s administrative inconvenience was not a ground, and video conferencing was available. Although a Children’s Court at Panchkula could in law try the case, no ground for transfer was made out, so the alternative prayer also failed.
What the Court Actually Held
- CBI investigation under DSPE Act notifications confers no trial jurisdiction on the CBI Special Court for a murder charge; those notifications concern investigation and PC Act offences.
- Under Sections 1(4) and 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, a child in conflict with law directed to be tried as an adult must be tried by the Children’s Court; the investigating agency cannot choose the forum and the State’s consent cannot confer jurisdiction.
- Transfer under Section 407 CrPC requires a reasonable, not imaginary, apprehension of an unfair trial; administrative inconvenience to the CBI and overlapping evidence are not enough.
- Petition dismissed; the Children’s Court, Gurugram, to proceed and endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within six months, the CBI to ensure its witnesses attend, and official and outstation witnesses may be examined by video conferencing.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It settles, for a case of national attention, that the Juvenile Justice Act’s protections travel with the child even when a central agency investigates.
- It clarifies that DSPE Act notifications concern investigation, not where a trial is held.
- It pushes a nine-year-old murder case towards conclusion with a six-month target and practical directions on witnesses.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families of Victims
- The trial forum is fixed by law, not by which agency investigated; a transfer needs strong grounds of unfairness.
- Courts can speed up trials through time-bound directions and video-conference evidence, as here.
For Counsel
- Where a child is tried as an adult, insist on Section 19 JJ Act safeguards before a Children’s Court; cite Thirumoorthy v. State.
- In Section 407 CrPC transfer pleas, show concrete reasons for apprehension — convenience of the agency is not one.
Key Takeaways
- CBI probe does not make the CBI court the trial forum.
- Children’s Court is the exclusive forum for a juvenile tried as an adult.
- Consent of the State cannot create jurisdiction.
- Trial to be completed preferably in six months.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where is a juvenile tried if the Board orders trial as an adult?
Before the Children’s Court, the High Court held, under Sections 1(4) and 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, with the safeguards of Section 19.
Does a CBI investigation mean the case goes to the CBI court?
No. The Court held that DSPE Act notifications only confer power to investigate and do not make the CBI Special Court the trial court for every CBI case.
When can a criminal trial be transferred under Section 407 CrPC?
When there is a reasonable apprehension of an unfair trial. Inconvenience to the investigating agency, or the State’s no-objection, is not enough.
Conclusion
Nine years after a child was killed at school, the High Court has kept the trial of the then-juvenile accused where the law places it and directed it to be completed swiftly. The judgment balances the family’s demand for justice with the statutory protections owed to a child in conflict with law.
Practical takeaway: The Juvenile Justice Act’s forum rule overrides an investigating agency’s convenience; transfer pleas need real proof of unfairness.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com