Gurgaon: A special court here will decide on Monday if the juvenile accused in the murder of a seven-year-old student will be tried as an adult.
The 16-year-old student is accused of killing a Class 2 student of a school in Gurgaon. The judgment by Justice J S Kundu is expected around 10.30am.
The Juvenile Justice Board on December 20 last year held that the teenager would be tried as an adult and directed that he be produced before the Gurugram Sessions Court.
If the order of the Juvenile Justice Board is set aside by the sessions court, the case will be sent back to the JJB. This would mean that the juvenile could be sentenced to a maximum punishment of three years to be spent in a correction home.
Justice Kundu will also be delivering judgment on two other petitions filed by the juvenile’s counsel. The first is regarding the JJB's order which allowed the CBI to take 16-year-old’s fingerprints. The defence says that the order was illegal and that CBI should not be allowed to use the fingerprints as a piece of evidence.
The second petition deals with remand of 3 days granted to the CBI by the JJB on 8th November 2017.
Sushil Tekriwal, lawyer of deceased's father, says that he is confident that all the three petitions will be dismissed by the court as they are “absolutely baseless and a part of a frivolous attempt to delay the trial”.
The seven-year-old student was found near the toilet of the Gurgaon school with his throat slit on September 8. The Gurgaon Police had arrested a bus conductor of the school pinning the blame of murder on him.
The CBI later announced that it had apprehended the senior student in connection with the murder rejecting the Gurgaon Police theory that the killing was the handiwork of school bus conductor.
According to the agency, the Class 11 student, believed to be weak in studies, allegedly slit the seven-year-old 's throat to get the school to declare a holiday in order to defer a scheduled parent-teacher meeting (PTM) and an examination.
The father of teenager had alleged that the CBI was torturing his son which was strongly refuted by the agency.