Child Accused in Schoolboy’s Murder Remains in Gurugram Children’s Court as P&H HC Rejects CBI Transfer Bid

The case arose from the 2017 murder of a seven-year-old student in Gurugram.

The CBI took over the investigation and charged respondent No. 2, who was under eighteen at the time of the alleged offence, under Section 302 IPC. Following a preliminary assessment under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), he was directed to be tried as an adult; the trial proceeded before the Children’s Court at Gurugram.

The CBI sought transfer to the Special Judge, CBI, Panchkula, arguing that the case had been investigated by the CBI and that related proceedings against adult accused were pending there. In the alternative, it sought transfer to a Children’s Court at Panchkula. The trial court proceedings had continued for several years.

Section 18(3), read with Section 1(4) of the JJ Act, requires the trial of a child directed to be tried as an adult to be conducted by the Children’s Court having jurisdiction; the JJ Act’s provisions concerning children in conflict with law prevail over inconsistent general laws.

Sections 19 and 23 respectively require the Children’s Court to apply the specified child-related safeguards and prohibit joint proceedings with an adult accused.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act concern investigative authority, not the forum of trial; the notification appointing the CBI Special Judge at Panchkula applied to specified Prevention of Corruption Act offences, not an IPC murder charge.

Under Section 407 Cr.P.C., transfer requires a statutory ground, such as the inability to obtain a fair trial, general convenience, or the ends of justice; transfer cannot displace a statutory requirement that trial be before a particular class of court.

The Court relied on Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan on statutory trial forums and transfer, Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu and Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India on the transfer test, and Thirumoorthy v. State on the mandatory nature of the JJ Act procedure.

The CBI’s notifications authorised investigation in Haryana but did not confer trial jurisdiction on the Special Judge, CBI. The relevant appointment notification confined that Judge’s jurisdiction to specified corruption offences, whereas respondent No. 2 faced only a charge under Section 302 IPC.

Because respondent No. 2 remained a child in conflict with law, the JJ Act required trial by a Children’s Court, with the statutory safeguards under Section 19; the CBI Court could not be substituted merely because it was also a court presided over by a Sessions Judge or because the CBI prosecuted the case.

As to the alternative request, there was no material showing that a fair trial could not be held at Gurugram. The occurrence, parties, family and school were located there, and the trial had substantially progressed.

The inconvenience of moving records or witnesses, and the pendency of proceedings against adult accused at Panchkula, did not justify transfer; joint proceedings were in any event barred by Section 23 of the JJ Act.

The petition was dismissed.

The Children’s Court at Gurugram was directed to endeavour to conclude the trial within six months, subject to the parties’ cooperation; the CBI was directed to ensure the attendance of its witnesses, and the trial court was permitted to use video conferencing for official and outstation witnesses in accordance with applicable rules.