Gujarat High Court: Moral Character Holds Greater Value Than Intellectual Brilliance in Juvenile Sodomy Case.
Justice Gita Gopi of the Gujarat High Court responded to the argument presented by the attorney of a 16-year-old boy charged with rape and unnatural sex for sodomizing an 8-year-old boy. The attorney claimed that the juvenile had recently completed the 12th grade and was an intelligent child.
Justice Gopi made a significant remark during the hearing, highlighting that a person’s intellectual brilliance loses its significance if their moral character is not upright. She stated that the argument regarding the boy’s intelligence would not be considered and emphasized that academic brilliance holds no value if moral character is lacking. Justice Gopi added that minors with such character traits cannot be allowed to roam freely in society.
The attorney representing the boy urged the judge to consider the minor’s future, suggesting that his continued custody would adversely affect it. However, the Court asserted that the future of such individuals was not the concern at hand. Justice Gopi emphasized that the Court’s focus lies on ensuring the safety and well-being of potential victims of the juvenile’s horrifying acts.
During the hearing, the judge also took note of the unfavorable probation officer’s report presented by the juvenile’s attorney. The Court considered the argument that the co-defendant, a 19-year-old adult, had recorded the incident and subsequently blackmailed the minor victim. The distribution of these recordings on social media by the co-accused was also taken into account.
In response to the attorney’s argument about the juvenile’s impoverished background, Justice Gopi questioned whether there was any assurance that the minor would not repeat such acts in the absence of parental supervision. The defense attorney argued that the minor had completed the 12th grade, but the judge clarified that passing the exams was likely due to the supervision provided by the staff at the correctional facility, rather than the influence of his parents.
As a result, the court issued an order requiring the father of the juvenile to submit an affidavit assuring the court that he will take necessary measures to prevent his son from engaging in similar conduct. The case is scheduled to be addressed again on July 20.
