Gurgaon: The Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered the 2017 Gurgaon school murder trial to remain in the city, rejecting CBI’s plea to shift it to its special court in Panchkula. It ruled that the investigating agency’s administrative convenience cannot override the Juvenile Justice Act’s safeguards or give its special court jurisdiction to try a murder case.Justice Manisha Batra observed that the accused student must be tried by a children’s court under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The court also rejected the alternative request to shift the proceedings to a children’s court in Panchkula, saying no grounds had been established to justify moving the trial out of Gurgaon.It directed the additional sessions judge heading the Gurgaon children’s court to “make every endeavour to conclude the trial”, preferably within six months of receiving a certified copy of the order, subject to cooperation from the parties.On Sept 8, 2017, a Class 2 student – referred to in court records by the fictitious name ‘Prince’ – was found murdered in a ground-floor washroom of an English-medium school in the city. Police initially arrested the school’s bus conductor, Ashok Kumar. But after taking over the probe, CBI said it found no evidence against him and sought his discharge. The trial court allowed the plea in Feb 2018.CBI had, meanwhile, apprehended another student from the same school, identified as ‘Bholu’ in court records. He was in Class XI and below 18 at the time of the murder. After CBI alleged that he killed the younger boy, Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) conducted a preliminary assessment and ordered that he be tried as an adult. The decision, however, went through successive legal challenges, including before the Supreme Court.After the high court ordered a fresh assessment, JJB again directed an adult trial in Oct 2022. The high court upheld that decision in May 2023, paving the way for the case to proceed before the children’s court in the city.CBI later sought to transfer the trial to its special judge in Panchkula, arguing that the court exercised jurisdiction over CBI cases across Haryana. It also pointed out that proceedings against adult accused arising from the same FIR were pending there. Moving records and prosecution witnesses to Gurgaon, it said, was causing inconvenience. The boy’s father supported the plea, arguing that evidence in the connected cases should be considered together. Haryana govt also raised no objection.But Sushil Tekriwal, counsel for the victim’s family, opposed the transfer, arguing that sections 1(4) and 18(3) of the JJ Act made a children’s court the mandatory forum. CBI’s notifications, he submitted, authorised the agency to investigate but did not confer trial jurisdiction on its special court. He also pointed out that proceedings in Gurgaon had progressed substantially and a transfer could cause further delay.The high court accepted the objection about central jurisdiction. It said Haryana govt’s Feb 8, 2012, notification appointing the presiding officer of the Panchkula CBI court as a special judge was issued under the Prevention of Corruption Act and covered offences under that law. The murder charge under Section 302 of IPC did not fall within its scope.The court clarified that Haryana and central govt notifications issued in Sept 2017, which enabled CBI to take over the probe, dealt with investigative powers alone. They did not change the court before which the case had to be tried. Under the ordinary rule, a crime is tried by a court within whose jurisdiction it was committed.Justice Batra also referred to Section 19 of the JJ Act, which requires a children’s court to consider the child’s special needs, ensure a child-friendly atmosphere and fair trial, and provide for an individual care plan and safeguards related to rehabilitation. These obligations, the court said, could not be discharged by a CBI special court merely because its presiding officer held the rank of a sessions judge.It further relied on Section 23, which bars joint proceedings against a child in conflict with law and an adult accused. “The trials arising from the same FIR must therefore remain separate. Common witnesses can be examined independently in each,” the court observed.Rejecting the argument about the inconvenience of transporting records and witnesses, the court said transfer pleas must account for the convenience of all parties — the accused, complainant, prosecution and witnesses — not just the investigating agency. The victim’s family, accused and school were based in Gurgaon, where the trial had already proceeded for years. There was also no material to suggest that a fair and impartial hearing was impossible there, it held.
