Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 July, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123534 Reserved on 11.7.2025 Delivered on 28.7.2025 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5841 of 2024 Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
As per office report dated 25.4.2025, notice on opposite party no.2 has been served, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose this revision.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 6.9.2024 passed by Children?s Court/Special Judge(POCSO Act), Mainpuri in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2023 and order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri in Case Crime No. 68 of 2023(In Case No. 30 of 2023) under Sections 354B, 376(3),323,506 I.P.C, and section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act Police Station Kuraoli District Mainpuri.
The juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri had made preliminary assessment of the revisionist for being tried as adult only on the basis of the question put up to him without any help of Psychologist report. The Children's Court, Mainpuri has also affirmed the same. Only on the basis of the same, despite the argument having been raised before appellate court, that no assessment report by the Psychologist has been called by the Board,the same was not ordered by the Children?s Court, Mainpuri.
This court finds that as per Section 15 (1) Proviso (1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, it has been provided that Board may take assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho social worker or other expert for making preliminary assessment regarding capacity of child and understand the consequences of alleged offence.The Apex Court in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu and another, 2022,3ALT (Cri) (SC),264 has held in paragraph-77 of the judgment that the word ?may? used in the aforesaid proviso should be read in sense of ?shall? and ?must?.
In view of the above, orders of the both the courts below cannot be sustained and is hereby set a side.
The Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri to get the psychologist test of the revisionist conducted through expert psychologist. Thereafter it shall make preliminary assessment in accordance with section 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2015.
The revision is allowed.
Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Atul kr. sri.