Daycare assault case: Juvenile produced before Juvenile Justice Board
The Child Welfare Committee (CWC) Noida, which will examine the toddler once she is medically fit, has termed the FIR as 'very weak' and missing crucial legal provisions.
'Certain sections of the Juvenile Justice Act have not been invoked, and even provisions pertaining to physical assault are absent. The prime responsibility for this incident lies with the head of the facility operating it. Once the baby comes to us, we will direct the police to add the relevant sections,' said CWC chairperson KC Virmani.
Virmani said the toddler has yet to be produced before the CWC as she is undergoing medical tests. 'Once she is produced, we will assess her actual condition, speak to the parents, and ensure she receives any required medical assistance,' he said.
The CWC chief further pointed out that the accused caretaker herself is a minor, making her employment a violation of child labour laws. 'Sections under the Child Labour Act are also missing. As per Supreme Court guidelines, police should also verify if she was paid minimum wages and whether her working hours complied with rules. We have learnt she was on a 10-hour duty daily, while the permissible limit is six hours given her age. Police should consult the labour department to add relevant sections,' Virmani added.
The assault took place on August 4 at the daycare located in Sector 137. CCTV footage allegedly shows the caretaker slapping, pushing, and biting the toddler on her thighs, and hitting her with a plastic bat.
The incident came to light on August 7, when the child's mother noticed two marks while changing her daughter's clothes.
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Porsche crash case: Police move court to try teen as adult
Pune:The Pune Police have filed an appeal before the sessions court against the Juvenile Justice Board's (JJB) July 15 order which rejected their plea to try the drunk 17-year-old Porsche Taycan driver as an adult in the May 19, 2024 accident that killed two young IT professionals in Kalyaninagar. The Pune Police have filed an appeal before the sessions court against the Juvenile Justice Board's (JJB) July 15 order which rejected their plea to try the drunk 17-year-old Porsche Taycan driver as an adult in the May 19, 2024 accident that killed two young IT professionals in Kalyaninagar. (HT) DCP (Crime) Nikhil Pingale confirmed that the Pune district collector, representing the state government, granted the police permission to move the appeal on July 31. 'We filed the application on August 4 after the district collector gave us permission for the same.' 'We have challenged the Juvenile Justice Board's order on the grounds that it is illegal and arbitrary. Given the gravity of the offence and the accused's age, 17 years and 8 months, a psychological evaluation was necessary to determine whether he should be tried as an adult,' Shishir Hiray, the government's lawyer said. The appeal, filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, argues that JJB's order is 'illegal and arbitrary.' Advocate Sarthi Pansare, assisting Hiray, said the accident should be treated as an exceptional case, given the severity and surrounding circumstances. ' A psychological assessment was essential to determine whether he had the mental capacity of a minor or an adult at the time,' Pansare said. The appeal also highlights that the application of Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (forgery involving tampering with blood samples, considered a form of valuable security) brings the possibility of life imprisonment. 'Even though Section 467 does not carry a minimum sentence, if a minor is convicted under this section, Section 233(2) of the JJ Act provides for a minimum of seven years' imprisonment if tried as an adult,' Pansare added. The case drew nationwide attention after JJB initially granted bail to the teen with lenient conditions, including writing a 300-word essay on road safety.
Hindustan Times
16 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Police move court as Juvenile Justice Board junks plea to try Porsche case accused as adult
Pune, The Pune police have approached a sessions court, challenging the Juvenile Justice Board's decision to reject their request to try a 17-year-old accused in the deadly Porsche car crash here as an adult for the trial in the case, an official said on Tuesday. Police move court as Juvenile Justice Board junks plea to try Porsche case accused as adult The boy, son of a well-known real estate developer, is accused of driving the luxury car in Kalyani Nagar area of Pune in an inebriated state and fatally knocking down two motorcycle-borne IT professionals, Anish Awadhiya and Ashwini Costa, in May last year, an incident that attracted nationwide attention. The Juvenile Justice Board last month rejected the Pune police's plea to treat the juvenile accused as an adult, stating the offence does not qualify as a "heinous crime". An officer from the crime branch on Tuesday said that after obtaining necessary permission from the district collector, the Pune police approached the sessions court here and challenged the JJB order on August 4. Advocate Sarthi Pansare, who is assisting Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray in the Porsche car crash case, said that while moving the application in the sessions court, the prosecution argued the juvenile was in full knowledge about the consequences if he drives the car in an inebriated condition. "Our demand is to conduct a psychological assessment of the juvenile and it can be done only after he is declared an adult in the case. We argued that this is an exceptional case and the juvenile should be treated as an adult," Pansare said. Defence counsel Prashant Patil, representing the boy, had cited a Supreme Court Judgement in the Shilpa Mittal Vs State case in which the SC has defined what is a heinous crime. The guidelines decided by the Supreme Court are binding on everyone, however, the plea by prosecution is contrary to the apex court's judgement, Patil said. The defence demanded that since the plea is contrary to the Supreme Court's guidelines, it is not maintainable, he said. To define a certain crime as heinous, the prosecution must have a section in which minimum punishment is seven years, he said. The JJB, in its order, stated the child should not be subjected to preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The provision of preliminary assessment is only for heinous offences. The teenager got bail hours after the horrific accident on May 19 last year. The lenient bail terms, including asking the minor to write a 300-word essay on road safety, triggered a nationwide firestorm, following which he was sent to an observation home in Pune city three days later. On June 25 last year, the Bombay High Court directed that the boy be released immediately, saying the Juvenile Justice Board's orders remanding him to an observation home were illegal and the law regarding juveniles must be implemented fully. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Indian Express
17 hours ago
- Indian Express
Pune police challenge JJB order rejecting their plea to try minor driver in Porsche crash as adult
The Pune City Police have appealed against the Juvenile Justice Board's (JJB) July 15 order that rejected their plea to try the minor accused as an adult in last year's Porsche crash case, in which two software engineers were killed in the city. Adv Sarthi Pansare, who is assisting Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray, said, 'We have challenged the JJB order under section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which pertains to appeals under the law.' The prosecution had argued that the accused in the Pune Porsche case had committed a 'heinous offence', was driving the car after consuming liquor despite knowing its consequences, he was also part of a blood-swap cover-up conspiracy in which the minor's blood was replaced with his mother's. The defence had opposed the application, arguing that the offence cannot be legally termed 'heinous' and that the object of the Juvenile Justice Act was 'reformative' and not 'punitive'. In the early hours of May 19 last year, the then 17-year-old boy was allegedly driving a Porsche Taycan at a very high speed while being intoxicated, and the car crashed into a motorbike, killing two software engineers— Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta. What police investigation unravelled was alleged cover-ups, bribery, abuse of power, and tampering with blood samples at the government-run Sassoon General Hospital. It can be recalled that after the accident, the minor driver was detained and produced before the JJB the same afternoon. The police sought his custody in an observation home and requested he be tried as an adult, but the JJB rejected both pleas and granted him bail with conditions, including writing an essay, studying traffic norms, and undergoing de-addiction counselling. Amid public outcry, the police challenged the order in the district court, which sent the matter back to the JJB. On May 22 last year, the JJB remanded the minor to an observation home until June, with psychological and de-addiction counselling included in his rehabilitation. His initial remand ended on June 5 and was extended to June 12. The police then sought another 14-day extension, while the defence requested his release. After hearing both sides, the JJB extended the remand to June 25. However, the Bombay High Court, responding to a habeas corpus plea from his aunt, ruled the remand illegal and ordered the minor's release into her care. The boy turned 18 in the latter half of 2024. After the July 15 ruling of the JJB, Special Public Prosecutor Hiray has said there is a need for a national-level debate on what constitutes a heinous crime under the provisions of the JJ Act and provisions surrounding this aspect.
