“You are making people who wish to employ juveniles for graver crimes very aware that it will be the easiest way to get some crime done,” laments Shilpa Mittal, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to treat the accused in 2016 hit-and-run case, that led to the death of her brother in North Delhi, as a juvenile.
Mittal’s 32-year-old brother Siddharth Sharma was walking back to his home in Civil Lines, when he was run over by a Mercedes sedan, allegedly being driven by a minor, who was just four days away from turning 18.
As CCTV footage of the accident went viral, reports claimed that the now 22-year-old accused, who was driving his father’s car, had repeatedly violated traffic rules.
In its order, the Supreme Court said that the accused should be treated as a juvenile as only those minors who commit heinous offences with a minimum punishment of seven years can be treated as an adult under the Juvenile Justice Act.
The accused, a minor at the time of the accident, was booked under IPC Section 304 A ( Causing death by negligence) which carries a maximum punishment for 10 years, but has no provision for a minimum punishment.
Mittal says she is appalled at the fact that although the ‘objective’ system is aware of the flaws in the law, it has done little to change it. Left helpless by the apex court’s verdict, she wonders if there exists any way to bring her brother back, as that alone would probably move those in power to do what is just.
If there was any one way that my brother could come back and ask for justice, I can assure you that he would be standing in the court. He would be standing for the number of years that he missed living, for the number of dreams that he would have fulfilled in his journey of life.
Mittal feels that sending the accused to a reform centre will not bring about any change in him, as his parents, who were aware of his repeated violations, did nothing to stop him and may “be able to buy the system outright.”
She feels that this decision will not deter juveniles from committing crimes, as they no longer will be afraid of the law, knowing that will get away with sometime at a reform home.
“I am not saying that put the boy behind bars for 100 years, but get him some worthy punishment where at least he realises his mistake and you set a precedent that come what may, if you are not responsible or your parents are not responsible then you can go behind bars. That you can't get away. We need to protect our children but not promote them. This order only gives promotion for our children to become criminals,” she adds.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)