Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said there was no infirmity in the view taken by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and a trial court, and dismissed the petitions of the two juveniles challenging the sentence of sending them to protective custody for six months for their proper rehabilitation.
According to the prosecution, the 15-year-old victim was employed in a bakery owned by the father of the two juvenile accused. In October 2014, one of the juveniles allegedly sodomised the victim and when he complained about it to the brothers of the accused, they inserted an iron rod into his private parts and also threatened to kill him.
Initially, the victim did not disclose the incident to anyone and when he was taken to a doctor, it was claimed to be an accident.
However, the doctor informed the police as he suspected foul play.
A surgery of the victim was conducted at a government hospital here and 58 days after the incident, his mother lodged a police complaint, alleging that he was sexually assaulted and the injury was caused due to the insertion of an iron rod into his private parts.
While the two juveniles were facing proceedings before the JJB, the adult accused are facing trial before a court here.
While one of the juveniles was convicted by the JJB for the offence of sodomy, the other was held guilty for attempting to murder the victim.
The high court judge said, "Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as noticed above, I find no infirmity in the view taken by the JJB as well as the appellate (trial) court. I find no merit in the petitions. The petitions are accordingly dismissed."
The high court clarified that it had neither examined the evidence nor returned any finding regarding the ongoing trial of the other adult accused before the sessions court.
"The sessions court would be at liberty to decide the case, based on evidence which come before it, without being influenced by anything stated herein," it said.
Regarding the contention of the juvenile accused that there was a delay in lodging the complaint, the high court said it was sufficiently explained by the victim.
"The victim was employed in the factory of the father of the petitioners (juveniles) and being a young boy of 15 years who has suffered trauma, it was not unreasonable for him to have hidden this fact from others out of fear and shame," it said.
The court rejected the defence taken by the accused that it was an accident and the victim had fallen from a height on the handle of a machine, due to which he received injuries in his private parts.
"It has also been observed by the JJB that such an injury is not possible as there was no other injury on any other part of the body of the victim.
"The board was rightly of the view that if there was substance in the version of the defence, then the victim would have suffered injuries not only to the anus but also other parts of the body and since no other injury was present, the board has rightly disbelieved the version of the juveniles," it said.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)