NEW DELHI: In its first verdict in the Nirbhaya case, a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) on Saturday held that the minor accused was “involved” in the gang rape and murder of the paramedical 23-year-old student and sent him to three years in a “place of safety” at a reformatory home.

The dispositional order — equivalent to a sentencing order in an adult court — will, however, be “subject to review” by the Board, depending on the behaviour of the juvenile. The three-year sentence, maximum punishment prescribed under the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, is inclusive of the over eight months that the juvenile has already undergone in the reformatory home. This means he will walk free after two years and four months.

The verdict comes nearly nine months after Nirbhaya was gang-raped and brutally assaulted with an iron rod by six people in a moving bus on the night of December 16 last year. Nirbhaya died in a Singapore hospital on December 29, unable to recover from the severe injuries inflicted by her attackers.

In its verdict, the board presided over by principal magistrate Geetanjli Goel also found the juvenile, who has attained majority since, involved in other offences, including dacoity and criminal conspiracy. The Board, however, acquitted him of the charge of attempt to murder Nirbhaya’s male friend, who was the sole eyewitness to the dastardly crime.

The order was pronounced around 3.30pm by the principal magistrate after in-camera proceedings. While delivering the verdict, the Board directed the people present inside, including the accused, prosecution, defence counsel and the victim’s family members not to disclose the contents of the 60-page judgment. The board has also barred the media from reporting on the details of the judgment.

The Board had on July 11 convicted the accused, a cleaner in the bus in which the victim was raped, in another case of robbery. On Saturday, it awarded him the sentence already undergone by him in the probation home for robbing Ramadhar, a carpenter who had boarded the bus but was thrown out before the gangrape victim and her friend were assaulted.

As soon as the verdict was pronounced, Nirbhaya’s family came out of the court in tears. While the father said he was disheartened and would appeal against the order, the mother was seen weeping.

The minor’s counsel, Rajesh Tiwari, claimed the sentence was subject to review in future depending on the juvenile’s conduct.

Apart from the offences of murder and gang rape, the Board convicted the juvenile under sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 364, 365, 366, 367 (kidnapping or abducting for murder, to defile a woman etc) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), police said. The Board also held him guilty for offences under sections 377 (unnatural offences), 395 (dacoity), 412 (dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing that it was obtained by dacoity), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC, they said.

While acquitting him of attempting to murder the victim’s male friend, the Board also acquitted him of offences under sections 396 (murder during dacoity) and 397 (robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the IPC, the sources said.

The verdict came after the apex court on August 22 allowed the Board to pronounce the judgment in the case against the juvenile. The pronouncement of verdict had been deferred by the Board four times since July 11, when the minor was convicted of robbing a carpenter. The Board began its inquiry in the case in March and concluded the probe on July 5. It had reserved the judgment after it heard final arguments from both the prosecution and the defence in the case.

The other four accused, all adults, are being tried by a fast-track court in Saket. Another accused Ram Singh was found dead on March 11 in his cell in Tihar Jail and the trial against him has been abated.

Times View

Almost everybody will agree that there is something wrong with a system that allows someone who has raped and brutalized a girl, resulting in her death, to walk free after just three years because he was a ‘juvenile’. All over the world, laws distinguish between adults and juveniles but many countries do not make this distinction absolute. They strike a balance by calibrating the age below which a person is considered juvenile to the nature of the crime. For those charged with heinous crimes like murder or rape, the age limits are lower. TOI has been asking for a similar system here for some time. The need for it is felt all the more now when most feel that Nirbhaya has been denied justice.