In a significant decision that underscores the delicate balance between juvenile rehabilitation and public safety, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently ruled against the release of Bindesh Fulchand Netam, a juvenile in conflict with the law, who sought release after turning 21. The court upheld his transfer from a juvenile facility to an adult prison, highlighting that societal safety must be considered alongside the rehabilitative goals of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Background of the Case
The case, Bindesh Fulchand Netam vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WPCR No. 150 of 2024), revolved around the fate of Netam, who was convicted under Section 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and various sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The alleged incident occurred on June 18, 2017, when Netam, then 17 years old, along with five adult co-accused, was accused of gang rape. Arrested the next day, he was prosecuted under provisions that permit juveniles aged 16-18 to be tried as adults for heinous crimes. The Juvenile Justice Board had referred his case to the Sessions (POCSO) Court in Kondagaon, which convicted him in December 2019, sentencing him to 20 years of imprisonment.
Legal Context and Issues Raised
The core issue before the High Court was whether the juvenile offender, who had completed the prescribed time in a juvenile facility until the age of 21, should be released based on reformative progress reports or transferred to an adult prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Netam’s counsel, Ms. Adenwala, argued that the petitioner had undergone significant reformative changes during his stay in the juvenile facility. As per the Probation Officer’s reports, Netam actively participated in educational programs, vocational training, and recreational activities, indicating a positive transformation. The defense emphasized that Netam’s release would align with the rehabilitative goals of the Juvenile Justice Act, allowing him to reintegrate into society.
On the other hand, the State, represented by Mr. Thakur, contended that the heinous nature of the crime warranted the completion of the sentence in an adult prison. The State argued that releasing Netam could pose a threat to public safety, as effective monitoring post-release would be challenging, potentially leading to recidivism. The Sessions (POCSO) Court’s order of August 3, 2022, transferring Netam to prison upon turning 21 was cited as compliant with Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which permits such transfers after evaluating the juvenile’s behavior and reformative progress.
Key Observations of the Court
The High Court carefully examined the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which require periodic evaluations of juveniles’ reformative progress, particularly when they approach adulthood. The bench noted that while the Act is intended to be rehabilitative and not punitive, it also aims to ensure that societal safety is not jeopardized.
Quoting from the judgment, the bench stated:
“The release of a juvenile should not only aim at rehabilitation but also ensure that societal safety is not compromised.”
The court emphasized that although probationary reports had shown positive changes in Netam, there remained concerns about his potential reintegration into society without sufficient supervision. The judges also highlighted the challenges of monitoring released juveniles, particularly given the limited resources of the juvenile justice system:
“It would be difficult for the Probation Officer to monitor the juvenile’s behavior post-release, potentially leading to further criminal activities.”
Court’s Decision
The court, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, ultimately dismissed Netam’s petition for release. The judgment underscored the need for caution in deciding cases involving juveniles convicted of heinous crimes. The bench expressed concerns about potential repercussions of a lenient approach, noting:
“Granting such relief would open the floodgates for similar juveniles, risking societal safety.”
The court ruled that releasing Netam would neither be in his best interest nor in the interest of society, as there was no concrete assurance that he would not revert to criminal activities upon release. The judgment reinforced the view that the rehabilitative measures of the Juvenile Justice Act must be balanced with deterrence to ensure public safety.
