JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

(A VENTURE OF THE SEEDLING GROUP OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS)

WICTIMOLOGY AND JUVENILE JUSTICE

SUBJECT -: DETERMINATION OF AGE OF JUVENILE OFFENDER

(Date of submission –02 NOVEMBER 2017)

Submitted to: Submitted by:

G.S Karkara sir Niraj kumar

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With immense please, I Mr. NIRAJ KUMAR . presenting

the assignment report as part of the curriculum of subject
(definations, theories of punishment). I wish to thank all the
people to gave me support.

I express my profound thanks to faculty Mr. G.S Karkara

Sir all those who have indirectly guide and helped me in
preparation of this assignment.

Niraj kumar
(signature of the student )
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION OF CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY

2. DEFINATION OF CRIMINOLOGY

3. DEFINATION OF PENOLOGY

4. INTRODUCTION & THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

5. IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

6. PUNISHMENT

7. PUNISHMENT JUSTIFICATIONS & GOALS

8. INFLUENCE FROM CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY

9. CONCLUSION
 Victimology

The study of victimization, including the psychological effects on victims,

relationships between victims and offenders, the interactions between
victims and the criminal justice system—that is, the police and courts, and
corrections officials—and the connections between victims and other social
groups and institutions, such as the media, businesses, and social
movements.[1] Victimology is, however, not restricted to the study of victims
of crime alone but may include other forms of human rights violations.

Victim of a crime
In criminology and criminal law, a victim of a crime is an
identifiable person who has been harmed individually and directly by
the perpetrator, rather than by society as a whole. However, this may not
always be the case, as with victims of white collar crime, who may not be
clearly identifiable or directly linked to crime against a particular individual.
Victims of white collar crime are often denied their status as victims by the
social construction of the concept (Croall, 2001). The concept also remains
a controversial topic within women's studies.

The Supreme Court of the United States first recognized the rights of crime
victims to make a victim impact statement during the sentencing phase of
a criminal trial in the case of Payne v. Tennessee 501 U.S. 808 (1991).

A victim impact panel is a form of community-based or restorative justice in

which the crime victims (or relatives and friends of deceased crime victims)
meet with the defendant after conviction to tell the convict about how the
criminal activity affected them, in the hope of rehabilitation or deterrence.
Consequences of crimes

Emotional distress as the result of crime is a recurring theme for

all victims of crime. The most common problems, affecting three quarters of
victims, were psychological problems, including: fear, anxiety,
nervousness, self-blame, anger, shame, and difficulty sleeping.[2] These
problems often result in the development of chronic post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD). Post crime distress is also linked to pre-existing emotional
problems and sociodemographic variables. This has been known to become a
leading case of the elderly to be more adversely affected.(Ferraro, 1995)

Victims may experience the following psychological reactions:

 Increase in the realization of personal vulnerability.

 The perception of the world as meaningless and incomprehensible.
 The view of themselves in a negative light.


The experience of victimization may result in increasing fear on the part of the
victim, and the spread of fear in the community.
Victim facilitation

Victim facilitation, another controversial sub-topic, but a more

accepted theory than victim proneness, finds its roots in the writings of
criminologists such as Marvin Wolfgang. The choice to use victim facilitation
as opposed to "victim proneness" or some other term is that victim facilitation
is not blaming the victim, but rather the interactions of the victim that make
him/her vulnerable to a crime.

The theory of victim facilitation calls for study of the external elements that
make a victim more accessible or vulnerable to an attack.[22]In an article that
summarizes the major movements in victimology internationally, Schneider
expresses victim facilitation as a model that ultimately describes only the
misinterpretation by the offender of victim behavior.[23] It is based upon the
theory of a symbolic interaction and does not alleviate the offender of his/her
exclusive responsibility.

In Eric Hickey’s Serial Murderers and their Victims, a major analysis of

329 serial killers in America is conducted. As part of Hickey’s analysis, he
categorized victims as high, low, or mixed regarding the victim’s facilitation of
the murder. Categorization was based upon lifestyle risk (example, amount of
time spent interacting with strangers), type of employment, and their location
at the time of the killing (example, bar, home or place of business). Hickey
found that 13–15% of victims had high facilitation, 60–64% of victims had low
facilitation and 23–25% of victims had a combination of high and low
facilitation.[24] Hickey also noted that among serial killer victims after 1975,
one in five victims were at greater risk from hitchhiking, working as a
prostitute, or involving themselves in situations in which they often came into
contact with strangers

There is importance in studying and understanding victim facilitation as well

as continuing to research it as a sub-topic of victimization. For instance, a
study of victim facilitation increases public awareness, leads to more research
on victim-offender relationship, and advances theoretical etiologies of violent
crime.[25] One of the ultimate purposes of this type of knowledge is to inform
the public and increase awareness so fewer people become victims. Another
goal of studying victim facilitation, as stated by Maurice Godwin, is to aid in
investigations. Godwin discusses the theory of victim social networks as a
concept in which one looks at the areas of highest risk for victimization from
a serial killer.[26] This can be connected to victim facilitation because the
victim social networks are the locations in which the victim is most vulnerable
to the serial killer. Using this process, investigators can create a profile of
places where the serial killer and victim both frequent.

Important Case Laws

Himangshu Das Sharma vs State Of West Bengal on 25 September,

2006
Calcutta High Court Himangshu Das Sharma vs State Of West Bengal on 25
September, 2006
Calcutta High Court

State Of Karnataka vs K.S. Manjunathachari And Others on 16 April,

1999
Karnataka High Court State Of Karnataka vs K.S. Manjunathachari And Others on 16
April
Karnataka High court

Saji Kumar vs Soman Pillai on 13 July, 2006

primary object of compensating the victim. Principles of victimology come into play.
The legislature zealously wants to ensure that
Kerala High Court

Ajay Bansal vs Nirmal Jain on 7 December, 2005

aforesaid cases and the newly developed concept of "victimology", learned Counsel
for the petitioner submits that in the instant case ... towards the thinking of relationship
of victim and criminal. Victimology is basically the study of crime from victim's point
State Of M.P. vs Mangu Alias Mangilal And Ors. on 29 March, 1995
have such a statutory provision. Emerging theories of victimology support grant-in-aid
and assistance to the victim
Madhya Pradesh High Court

C.Dinesan vs V.C.V. Kutty on 7 August, 2008

primary object of compensating the victim. Principles of victimology come into play.
The legislature zealously wants to ensure that
Kerala High Court

Vishal Yadav vs State Govt. Of Up on 6 February, 2015

Delhi High Court Vishal Yadav vs State Govt. Of Up on 6 February,
2015 Author
Delhi High Court
Introduction of Juvenile crime

Juvenile crime is one of the nation's serious problems. Concern about

it is widely shared by federal, state, and local government officials and by the
public. In recent years, this concern has grown with the dramatic rise in
juvenile violence that began in the mid-1980s and peaked in the early 1990s.
Although juvenile crime rates appear to have fallen since the mid-1990s, this
decrease has not alleviated the concern. Many states began taking a tougher
legislative stance toward juveniles in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a period
during which juvenile crime rates were stable or falling slightly, and federal
reformers were urging prevention and less punitive measures. Some of the
dissonance between the federal agenda and what was happening in the states
at that time may have been caused by significant changes in legal procedures
that made juvenile court processes more similar—though not identical—to
those in criminal (adult) court. The main response to the most recent spike in
violent juvenile crime has been enactment of laws that further blur
distinctions between juvenile courts and adult courts. States continued to
toughen their juvenile crime laws in recent years, making sentencing more
punitive, expanding allowable transfers to criminal (adult) court, or doing
away with some of the confidentiality safeguards of juvenile court. Many such
changes were enacted after the juvenile violent crime rate had already begun
to fall. The rehabilitative model embodied in the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, focusing on the needs of the young
offender, has lost ever more ground over the past 20 years to punitive models
that focus mainly on the offense committed.

Crime policies in the United States have been moving in the direction of
treating juveniles as adults, even though many young people continue to grow
up in settings that “fail to provide the resources, the supports, and the
opportunities essential to a healthy development and reasonable preparation
for productive adulthood” (National Research Council, 1993a:2)—settings
that put young people at high risk for delinquency. In 1997, 40 percent of all
those living below the poverty level in the United States were under the age of
18 (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). Structural changes in society, including
fewer two-parent homes and more maternal employment, have contributed to
a lack of resources for the supervision of children's and adolescents' free time.

Government policy on juvenile delinquency must often struggle with the

appropriate balance of concern over the healthy development of children and
adolescents who violate the law and a public desire to punish criminals. This
tension between rehabilitation and punishment when dealing with children
and adolescents who commit crimes results in an ambivalent orientation
toward young offenders. Criminal acts must be suppressed, condemned, and
punished. Nevertheless, children and adolescents who commit criminal acts
must be educated and supported in a growth process that should be the
objective of government policy for all young people, including young
offenders.

A number of cognitive and social features of childhood and adolescence

influence the content of juvenile crime policy. Historically, children under the
age of seven have been considered below the age of reason, and therefore
unable to formulate the criminal intent necessary to be held accountable for
criminal offenses. In practice, children younger than age 10 are rarely
involved in the juvenile justice system. Arrests of those younger than 10 years
old account for less than 2 percent of all juvenile arrests. By the age of 16 or
17, most adolescents are deemed to have sufficient cognitive capacity and life
experience to be held accountable for intended wrongful acts. How to deal
appropriately with those who commit crimes between the ages of 10 and 17 is
the issue faced in juvenile crime policy. Adolescence is a period of dating,
driving, and expanding social networks—all choices that can produce positive
or negative consequences for the adolescent and the community. Public
policies in the areas of education, medical care, alcoholic beverage control,
and juvenile crime reflect beliefs that adolescents have not acquired the
abilities or capacities necessary for adult status. Creating the appropriate
public policy for a period of semiautonomy is no small task (Zimring, 1982).
To

further complicate the matter, crime rates peak in mid- to late adolescence,
making policy toward young offenders of special importance.

To best answer the questions of how to deal with young offenders requires
knowledge of factors in the individual, family, social settings, and community
that influence the development of delinquent behavior; of the types of
offenses committed by young people; and of the types of interventions that
can most efficiently and effectively prevent offending in the first place or
prevent its recurrence. This study reviews literature in all of these areas to
provide an objective view of juvenile crime and the juvenile justice system in
the United States.
Determination of Age juvenile offender

1. In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the

court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in
rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or
a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the
date of making of the application for that purpose.

2. The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide
the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may
be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical
appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation
home or in jail.

(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age
determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the
case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining –

(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the

absence whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first
attended; and in the absence whereof;

(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a

panchayat;

(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the
medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which
will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age
cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee,
for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give
benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within
the margin of one year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after
taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical
opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of
the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence
whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such
child or the juvenile in conflict with law.

(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found
to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the
conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the court or the Board or as the case
may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and
declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and
these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the
person concerned.

(5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia,
in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry
shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining
the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of
this rule.

(6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off
cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance
with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring
dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in
the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.

6. In the light of the above procedure to be followed in determining the age of

the child or juvenile, let us consider various decisions of this Court.

7. In Raju and Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2010) 3 SCC 235, this Court had
admitted "mark sheet" as one of the proof in determining the age of the
accused person. In that case, the appellants therein Raju and Mangli along
with Anil alias Balli and Sucha Singh were sent up for trial for allegedly having
committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the IPC. Accused Sucha Singh was found to be a juvenile and his case was
separated for separate trial under the Act. Others were convicted under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were sentenced to
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Apart from contending
on the merits of the prosecution case, insofar as appellant No. 1, Raju, is
concerned, the counsel appearing for him submitted that on the date of the
incident that is on (31.03.1994), he was a juvenile and as per his mark sheet,
wherein his date of birth was recorded as 1977, he was less than 17 years of
age on the date of the incident. Learned counsel submitted that having regard
to the recent decision of this Court in Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,
(2009) 13 SCC 211, appellant No. 1 must be held to have been a minor on the
date of the incident and the provisions of the Act would apply in his case.
Learned counsel further contended that the appellant No. 1 would have to be
dealt with under the provisions of the said Act in keeping with the decision in
the aforesaid case. On merits, while accepting the claim of the learned counsel
for accused-appellant, this Court altered the conviction and sentence and
convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC instead of Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC. As far as appellant No. 1, namely, Raju was
concerned, while accepting the entry relating to date of birth in the mark
sheet referred his case to the Board in terms of Section 20 of the Act to be
dealt under the provisions of the said Act in keeping with the provision of
Section 15 thereof. It is clear from the said decision that this Court has
accepted mark sheet as one of the proof for determining the age of an accused
person.
Important Case Laws

Hari Ram vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 5 May, 2009

purpose of determination of age in every case concerning a child
or juvenile or a juvenile in conflict with ... every case concerning a child
or juvenile in conflict with law, the agedetermination inquiry shall be
conducted
Supreme Court of India

Babloo Pasi vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 3 October, 2008

Justice Board in holding enquiry in determination of the age of
a Juvenile Rule 22 (5) (iv) provides that ... would be the guiding factor
in determination of the age of a Juvenile, subject to margin of one year
Supreme Court of India

Sameer vs State on 29 April, 2010

juvenile in conflict with law, the determination of juvenility of such
a juvenile would be in terms of Section ... every case concerning a child
or juvenile in conflict with law, the agedetermination inquiry shall be
conducted
Gujarat High Court

R.K. Tarun vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 November, 2015

prescribe the procedure to be followed for determination of age of
a juvenile in conflict with law, are ultra vires ... Child Welfare Committee
in determination of age of a juvenile or child. The said Rule to the extent
Delhi High Court

Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs State Of M.P on 13 September, 2012

revision or appeal etc., the determination of juvenility of a juvenile has to
be in terms of clause ... procedure to be followed in determination of
the age of a juvenile in conflict with law, had not come into
Supreme Court of India
Section 49 – Presumption and determination of age –
Juvenile Justice

the purpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile or thechild, the competent

authority shall make due inquiry so as to the age of that person and for that
purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit)
and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or the child or not,
stating his age as nearly as Where it appears to a competent authority that
person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise
than for may be.

No order of a competent authority shall be deemed to have become

invalid merely by any subsequent proof that the person in respect of whom
the order has been made is not a juvenile or the child, and the age recorded by
the competent authority to be the age of person so brought before it, shall for
the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.
Juvenile justice (care anad protection of children)2015

It has been passed by Parliament of India.[1] It aims to replace the

existing Indian juvenile delinquency law, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000, so that juveniles in conflict with Law in the age group
of 16–18, involved in Heinous Offences, can be tried as adults.[2]The Act came
into force from 15 January 2016.

It was passed on 7 May 2015 by the Lok Sabha amid intense protest by several
Members of Parliament. It was passed on 22 December 2015 by the Rajya
Sabha.

To streamline adoption procedures for orphan, abandoned and surrendered

children, the existing Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) has been
given the status of a statutory body to enable it to perform its function more
effectively. There is a separate chapter on Adoption which provides detailed
provisions relating to adoption and punishments for not complying with the
laid down procedure. Processes have been streamlined with timelines for
both in-country and inter-country adoption including declaring a child legally
free.
History

After the attack of 2012 Delhi gang rape, it was found that one of the accused
was a few months away from being 18. So, he was tried in a juvenile
court.[2] On 31 July 2013, Subramanian Swamy, a BJP politician filed a Public
Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India seeking that the boy be tried
as an adult in a court. The Court asked the juvenile court to delay its verdict.

After the Supreme Court allowed the juvenile court to give its verdict, the boy
was sentenced to 3 years in a reform home on 31 August 2013.[7] The victim's
mother criticised the verdict and said that by not punishing the juvenile the
court was encouraging other teenagers to commit similar crimes.

In July 2014, Minister of Women and Child Development, Maneka Gandhi said
that they were preparing a new law which will allow 16-year-olds to be tried
as adult. She said that 50% of juvenile crimes were committed by teens
who thought that they get away with it. She added that changing the law,
which will allow them to be tried for murder and rape as adults, would scare
them.[9] The bill was introduced in the Parliament by Maneka Gandhi on 12
August 2014.[10] On 22 April 2015, the Cabinet cleared the final version after
some changes.

Summary
The bill will allow a Juvenile Justice Board, which would
include psychologists and sociologists, to decide whether a juvenile criminal
in the age group of 16–18 should tried as an adult or not.[2][12] The bill
introduced concepts from the Hague Convention on Protection of Children
and Cooperation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption, 1993 which were
missing in the previous act.[13] The bill also seeks to make the adoption
process of orphaned, abandoned and surrendered children more streamline.[
The bill introduces foster care in India. Families will sign up for foster care
and abandoned, orphaned children, or those in conflict with the law will be
sent to them. Such families will be monitored and shall receive financial aid
from the state. In adoption, disabled children and children who are physically
and financially incapable will be given priority. Parents giving up their child
for adoption will get 3 months to reconsider, compared to the earlier
provision of 1 month.[

A person giving alcohol or drugs to a child shall be punished with 7 years

imprison and/or ₹100,000 fine. Corporal punishment will be punishable
by ₹50,000 or 3 years of imprisonment. A person selling a child will be fined
with ₹100,000 and imprisoned for 5 years.

One of the most criticized step in the new JJ Bill 2015 is introduction of
"Judicial Waiver System" which allows treatment of juveniles, in certain
conditions,in the adult criminal justice system and to punish them as adults.
This is for the first time in India's history that such a provision has been
prescribed. Given to the severe criticism, Bill was referred to a Standing
Committee of Parliament which also rejected such provisions. Since
recommendations of Parliament's Standing Committee are not binding,
Government has moved ahead and introduced the Bill in Lok Sabha, where it
stands passed.

Bill is also criticized for prescribing an opaque Age Determination System and
its poor draft.

The bill now stands Passed in Rajya-Sabha on Tuesday 22 December 2015,

after the Nirbhaya case accused juvenile was released.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Juvenile can be defined as a child who has not attained a certain age at
which he, like an adult person under the law of the land, can be held liable for
his criminal acts. Delinquency is a kind of abnormality. When an individual
deviates from the course of normal social life his behaviour is called
‘Delinquenct’. When a juvenile, below an age specified under a statute exhibits
behaviour which may prove to be dangerous to society and / or for him, he
may be called a Juvenile delinquent. Juvenile delinquents are those offenders
including boys and girls who are under 18 years of age. A Juvenile delinquent
is a young person incorrigible or habitually disobedient.

Act of delinquency may include: Running away from home without the
permission of parents, Habitual behavior beyond the control of parents,
Spending time idly beyond limits, Use of vulgar languages, Wandering about
rail roads, streets market places, Visiting gambling centre ,Committing sexual
offences, Shop-lifting, Stealing etc.

A grave problem such as juvenile delinquency can’t he solved by means of

legislation and government efforts alone. As far as India is concerned in many
of the states Children Acts have not been effectively enforced. Some of these
Acts themselves have defects. Official machinery is not effectively used for
controlling this problem. Government as well as private agencies must work
hand in hand with all sincerity and seriousness to find on effective remedy for
the problem of juvenile delinquency.

The first legislation on juvenile justice in India came in 1850 with the
Apprentice Act which required that children between the ages of 10-18
convicted in courts to be provided vocational training as part of their
rehabilitation process. This act was transplanted by the Reformatory Schools
Act, 1897 and later came The Children Act of 1960. The Juvenile Justice Act,
1986 was the primary legal framework for juvenile justice in India. The Act
provided for a special approach towards the prevention and treatment of
juvenile delinquency and also provided a framework for the protection,
treatment and rehabilitation of children in the purview of the juvenile justice
system. The law replaced the Children Act, 1960.
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was applied uniformly throughout India except state
of Jammu and Kashmir. Prior to this law each state had its own enactment on
juvenile justice with there being differences in the way juveniles were treated
by different state legal systems. In a landmark step, the Government of India,
repealing the juvenile justice Act 1986, introduced juvenile justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act in 2000 and further, amended , it in 2006, so as to
make it responsive to the emerging needs in the tiled of juvenile justice, and
making it, compatible with UNCRC standards. The Juvenile Justice Act, 2000
aims at consolidating and amending laws relating to juveniles in conflict with
law, and children in need of care and protection by providing proper care,
protection and treatment by catering to their developmental needs, by
adopting child friendly approach in adjudication and disposition of matters in
the best interest of children, and for their rehabilitation through various
institutional mechanisms established.

The concept of juvenile justice was derived from a belief that the problems of
juvenile delinquency and youth in abnormal situations are not amenable to
resolution within the framework of the traditional processes of criminal law.
The term ‘juvenile justice’ has been given different meanings in different
contexts.

The juvenile justice system thus performs the welfare cum criminal justice
functions, in this duality of its roles; the system strives to achieve explicit
social goals such as the provision of minimum standards of child care. The
system also functions to safeguard the right of children as per the United
Nations Declaration of the Rights of the child.

The central functions of the juvenile justice system are: to provide for the care,
protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or
delinquent juveniles and for the adjudication of matters relating to, and
disposition of delinquent juveniles in the light of the avowed policy of
providing opportunities to such Children to become useful citizens for any
country.

Crime and the Treatment of Offenders identified three models of juvenile

justice system on the basis of contemporary approaches to dealing with
juvenile offenders namely; The due procedural model, The social welfare
model, and The participatory process model.
The juvenile justice movement appears to have owed more to the slowly
changing conceptions of childhood which came to maturity during the
seventeenth and eighteenth century. The concern for the children had grown
during the nineteenth century on account of the recognition of special needs
of children. By the end of nineteenth century these ideas were firmly backed
by legislation, and thus courts for children were required to be set up to give
expression to humanitarian beliefs.

The present Juvenile Justice legislation in India has tried to move out of the
derogatory nomenclature and introduced the concept of ‘children in conflict
with law’ and ‘children in need of care and protection’.

There are many theories of juvenile delinquency. Some are: Biogenic Theory,
Psychogenic Theory, Psychoanalytical and Psychiatric Theory, Medico-
Biological Theory, The classical Theory, Multi-causal Theory

There are mainly following causes in juvenile delinquency: Biological, Socio

Environmental, Psychological., Physiological or Personal. A few other causes
of delinquency[v] may also be mentioned as Bad Company, Adolescent
instability and impulses, Early sex experiences, Mental conflicts, Excessive
social suggestibility, Love of adventure, Motion pictures, School
dissatisfaction, Poor recreation, Street life, Vocational dissatisfaction, Sudden
impulses, Physical condition.

There are various programmes and strategies which may be undertaken to

control and prevent juvenile delinquency. Broadly the programmes can be
categorised under two heads Individual Programme and Environmental
programme.

Police has also important role to play to control juvenile delinquency. There
are following major areas of police dealing with Juvenile namely; Discovery,
Investigation of Delinquency, Case disposition, Protection of juveniles, and
Delinquency prevention.

The approach of the Supreme Court towards juvenile has been very liberal. It
was way back in 1977, when Supreme Court in a case[vi] held that penalty of
death should not be imposed on a person below 18 years of age. Borstal Acts
and Reformatory Schools Acts had the children guilty of offence punishable
with death or life imprisonment in their focus. Though the judicial opinion
was not uniform on the issue when these Acts could apply to such
children[vii]. The Supreme Court with a view to advance the cause of justice
has allowed the plea of juvenility being raised for the first time before it[viii].
In Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and another[ix], the Supreme Court had
to decide on conflicting views expressed in Arnit Dass and Umesh Chandra’s
case(supra). The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court to which the matter
was referred overruling the decision in Arnit Dass’s case upheld and re-
affirmed its view taken in Umesh Chandra’s case holding that the relevant
date for determination of age of juvenile is the date of an offence and not date
of his production before the court. The Supreme Court and the High Courts
have lent in favour of jurisdiction of the Board in preference to the jurisdiction
of any other court.

Regarding apprehension and production of the juvenile also the Supreme

Court has been very sensitive. In Sheeela Barse and Anr. (I) v. Union of India[1],
the Supreme Court directed the District Judges in the country to nominate the
Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Judicial Magistrate to visit there
respective jails and ascertain how many children below 16 years of age were
confined and what were the charges against them.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
The Ministry of Women and Child Development started
contemplating bringing several desired amendments in 2011 and a process of
consultation with various stake holders was initiated. A draft Bill in this
regard was prepared and was pending before the Ministry of Law and
Justice for scrutiny and was put up on the official website of Ministry of
Women & Child Development in June 2014 for public inputs. The Delhi gang
rape case in December 2012 had tremendous impact on public perception of
the Act. Contrary to the reality, Media highlighted that the juvenile allegedly
involved in this case was the “Most Brutal” of all accused persons. Eight writ
petitions alleging the Act and its several provisions to be unconstitutional
were heard by the Supreme Court of India in the second week of July 2013 and
were dismissed, holding the Act to be constitutional. Demands for a reduction
of the age of juveniles from 18 to 16 years were also turned down by the
Supreme Court, when the Union of India stated that there is no proposal to
reduce the age of a juvenile.

Many experts and activists viewed post December 2012 Delhi Gang Rape
responses as creation of media sensationalisation of the issue, and cautioned
against any regressive move to disturb the momentum of Juvenile Justice
Legislation in the Country. However some sections in the society felt that in
view of terrorism and other serious offences, Juvenile Justice Act of 2000
needed to be amended to include punitive approaches in the existing Juvenile
Justice Law, which so far is purely rehabilitative and reformative. In July 2014,
Indian Express reported that Pakistan-based terrorist organization Lashkar-e-
Toiba had asked its members to declare their age to be below 18 years. This
would ensure that they are tried under the Juvenile Justice Act instead of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The maximum punishment under the Act is three
years.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

www.cengage.com/c/crime-victims-an-introduction...victimology

www.informationvine.com/Juvenile+Crime

www.legalservicesindia.com/.../victims-victimization-and-victimology-

https://discovercriminaljustice.com/articles/juvenile-justice

http://www.legalblog.in/2011/08/juvenile-meaning-and-method-for.html

http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/section-49-presumption-and-
determination-of-age-juvenile-justice

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=conclusion+and+suggestion+of+juvenile
+delinquency