''The manner in which the throat of a 7-year-old boy has been slit in the premise/bath room of the Ryan International School, as per the probe conducted by the CBI itself, indicates that the present crime is chilling, horrific, monstrous and serious in nature. The accused, although being less then 18 years old, but being more then 16 years old (a juvenile in conflict with law) should be tried as an adult.''
This is how Barun Thakur, father of Gurugram Ryan International School’s class II student Pradyuman Thakur, pleaded before the juvenile justice board while seeking harsher punishment for the juvenile accused, also a student of class 11 in the same school.
However, the father of the minor accused is pleading innocence for his son, alleging the CBI has conducted a false probe and accused his son for a crime he never committed. The accused has also retracted his statement alleging pressure tactics were employed by the CBi to extract a confession.
''I can only talk for my son and I want him to be released as he has done no wrong. The CBI has implicated him wrongly. I can only depend on the court to give me justice,'' the distraught father of the minor accused told THE WEEK .
The victim's family wants the minor accused be treated as an adult and awarded maximum punishment calling it a ''rarest of rare'' crime. The accused falls in the age bracket 16-18 years and according to the CBI investigation, he slit the victim's throat to get the school to declare a holiday in order to defer a scheduled parent-teacher meeting and an examination.
The Pradyuman murder case is likely to become a 'test case' for the juvenile justice system in the country, which after an intense debate and discussion in Parliament, decided to treat juveniles aged 16 years and above under laws meant for heinous crimes committed by adults.
ALSO READ: Accused knew Pradyuman; had googled for poisons
Child rights activists had decried the amendment saying this distinction between children in the age bracket 16-18 years should not be made and only those above 18 years of age should be treated as adults. However, the amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act were passed after the 2012 Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case.
Suresh Tekriwal, the lawyer of the victim’s family, said they have reminded the juvenile board of the '''mandate of the new legislation'' which he felt was to bring justice to victims like Pradyuman.
"We demand justice under the mandate, warrant and spirit of the amendment carried in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 with effect from January 15, 2016,'' said Tekriwal.
The minor accused was arrested by the CBI on November 8. CBI sources told THE WEEK that despite the minor accused retracting his statement, the agency has collected scientific and forensic evidence of the involvement of the accused in the heinous crime.
"A thorough investigation has been carried out and whatever evidence is there will be given in the court of law. Investigations are still going on into all aspects of the case and a chargesheet will be filed against the accused within 90 days,'' CBI spokesperson Abhishek Dayal told THE WEEK.
On the plea of the family of the victim that the minor accused should be treated as an adult, the CBI said it will share its views when the matter comes up for hearing. Sources in the CBI also said the confessional statement of the minor accused matches with the scientific evidence and sequence of events established by the agency during its investigation.
The juvenile justice board will hear the petition on November 22 and Tekriwal is confident that the new amendments to the juvenile law will help Pradyuman’s case.
However, experts pointed out that in any case, the minor accused can neither be awarded death sentence nor life imprisonment according to section 21 of the JJ Act. Even if he is treated as an adult, it will be the discretion of the court to award him maximum punishment, but it cannot be ''life imprisonment'', explained a government official involved in the process of amendments to the JJ Act.
The investigation conducted by the CBI is also looking at another critical aspect—of the role played by the Haryana Police which arrested the school bus conductor Ashok Kumar naming him as the ''prime suspect'' within seven days of the crime. The Haryana Police had alleged that Kumar had tried to sodomise the victim and killed him when he tried to raise an alarm. The case was later transferred to the CBI by the Haryana government.
But the damage had already been done.
On Wednesday, the district court in Gurugram will hear the bail plea of Kumar, which is unlikely to be opposed by the CBI. If Kumar is set free, it will not only be a huge embarrassment for the Haryana Police, but is likely to open the door for a parallel investigation by the CBI into the botched up evidence of the Haryana Police and whether it was being done under any extraneous influence.
"Ashok Kumar has been framed by the Haryana Police which was hand in glove with the school authorities. Since he was poor and vulnerable, he was picked up and tortured without any concrete evidence against him. There were bruises on his body and he was forced to confess. The CBI has given him a clean chit and he will be set free tomorrow. But injustice has been done to Ashok and we want the CBI to investigate the role of the Haryana Police officers who carried out the preliminary investigation into the case,'' Kumar's lawyer Mohit Verma told THE WEEK.
''I don't rule out the possibility of political pressure on the Haryana Police officers who were investigating the case. If there wasn't any political pressure, there is no way that the state police would be close to filing a chargesheet against the bus conductor within seven days,'' he said.
Gurugram police commissioner Sandeep Khirwar, however, defended the role of the police saying the primary focus of the investigation was to bring justice to the victim. ''My personal assessment on the investigation is immaterial since it was an early investigation. We decided to hand over the case to the CBI after seven days and we are fully behind the CBI. We are lending all assistance and our aim is to bring justice and closure for the victim's family,'' Khirwar told THE WEEK.
However, for now, the CBI investigation into the case is hinging on two crucial aspects. If the bus conductor Kumar is not given bail by the court on Thursday, the CBI has a tougher job at hand with twin suspects coming up in the case.
But if Kumar walks free, the fate of the minor accused will become a test case on how the revised juvenile law is interpreted.
ALSO READ: Talwars and trial by CBI through media
It will also once again raise a big question mark on the investigating capabilities of state police forces which have in the past shown themselves in poor light—like the unsolved 2008 double murder of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj which was a botched up investigation by the UP Police and later handed over to the CBI which too failed to solve the murder.
