Allahabad High Court
Juvenile -X vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 October, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 23.09.2025 Delivered on 09.10.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6266 of 2024 Juvenile -X ..Revisionist(s) Versus State of U.P. and Another ..Opposite party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Namit Srivastava, Sarthak Verma, Niraj Tripathi, Pooja Tripathi Counsel for Opposite party(s) : G.A., Jagdish Prasad Mishra In Chamber HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
1. Heard Sri Sarthak Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1; Sri J. P. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material on record.
2. This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the impugned judgment/order dated 11.08.2023 as well as order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat, in case no. 16 of 2023,(State Vs. Acchit), arising out of case crime no. 541 of 2022, under sections 364-A, 302, 201 and 34 of I.P.C., Police Station- Khekara, District- Baghpat.
3. After declaration of the revisionist as juvenile ,his preliminary assessment was made regarding his physical and mental capability to commit the alleged offence. This court finds that the order has been passed on the basis of the report of Psychologist and Psycho Social Expert wherein they have held that the revisionist was capable of understanding the consequences of the act committed by him. Relying upon the aforesaid reports the Juvenile Justice Board has declared that the revisionist was capable of understanding the consequences of his act.
4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the entire preliminary assessment of the revisionist was made against the intent and purpose of Section-15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015. He has pointed out to the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat which shows that on 11.08.2023, the experts made preliminary assessment of the revisionist under Section-15 of J.J. Act, 2015 and the case was directed to be put up for order/ hearing after recess again. No hearing took place or any order was passed after lunch and the case was directed to be listed on 11.08.2023, but the order of preliminary assessment of the revisionist was passed on 11.08.2023 itself and after declaring him adult for the purpose of trial into heinous offence committed by him, his record was sent to the Session's Court and the record was received by the Sessions Court on 18.08.2023 and next date fixed was 19.08.2023.
5. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the order of preliminary assessment of the revisionist was passed without application of mind. No report of the Psychologist or Psycho Social workers was considered in the order. The counsel for the opposite party no.1 has submitted that the preliminary assessment of the revisionist was made as per the law. The counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of this court dated 24.07.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 4833 of 2024 and has placed reliance upon paragraph nos. 13, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 33 which are quoted hereinbelow:-
"13. The purpose of such preliminary assessment test under Section 15 of the Act is to ascertain as to whether `the child in conflict with law' is required to be tried as an adult by a Children's Court (vide Section 18(3)) or by the Board. In the aforesaid eventuality, once `a child in conflict with law' is produced before the Board, it is therefore, imperative for the Board to conduct a preliminary assessment test under Section 15 of the Act with regard to:
a. The mental and;
b. Physical capacity to commit a heinous offence within the meaning of Section 2(33) of the Act and;
c. Ability to understand the consequences of the offence and;
d. The circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence.
...................................................
16. Rule 10A of the said Act (Care and Protection of children) Model Rules, 2016 (in short `Central Rules') prescribes the procedure for preliminary assessment into heinous offences by the Board. It provides that the Board shall in the first instance determine whether the child is of 16 years of age or above. According to sub-Rule (2) of the Central Rules, for the purpose of conducting a preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences the Board may take assistance of psychologist or psycho-social workers or other experts who have experience of working with the children in different circumstances. According to sub-rule (3) of the Central Rules, while making the preliminary assessment, the child shall be presumed to be innocent. According to sub-rule (4) of the Central Rules, where the board, upon a preliminary assessment passes an order that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult, `it shall assign reasons for the same.
.....................................................
21. Section 15 of the Act therefore, envisages a crucial judicial examination which determines the status of the child qua a criminal trial. Though Section 15 of the Act is a component of an enquiry and not a trial, nevertheless, such inquiry requires application of judicial mind and the same is not a ministerial work. In this regard it may be mentioned that in the Act, the provisions for trail as envisaged under Cr PC has been generally conceptualized as inquiry. By virtue of sub-rule (3) of Rule 10A of Central Rule, during the decision making process the Board is obliged to presume the child to be an innocent.
22. The decision passed by the Board must necessarily be supported by reasons inasmuch as assigning reason is the best way out to demonstrate the application of mind. In case the reasoning fails, as a consequence thereof, the conclusion fails equally. An order under Section 15 of the said Act has therefore need to demonstrate satisfaction regarding the mental and/or physical capacity of the child to commit a heinous offence; the ability of the child to understand the consequences of the offences, and the circumstances in which the alleged offence had occurred.
23. In the present case, the petitioner, being more than 16 years of age as on the date of commission of alleged offence, the matter had to be considered in view of provisions of Section 15 of Act for the purpose of making preliminary assessment, as to whether the child in conflict with law had to be tried as an adult or not. The three parameters as provided under Section 15 of the Act are required to be followed strictly. The Act of 2015 has been enacted by the Parliament under the powers available under Article 253 of the Constitution of India, the age for trying the child/juvenile as an adult has been reduced from 18 to 16 years.
24. The case, in hand, falls within the category of heinous offence and the petitioner, being more than 16 years of age on the date of commission of offence, is required to be dealt with as per provisions of Section 15 of the Act for the purpose of making preliminary assessment. As per arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Board has conducted the preliminary assessment and got the report from Psychologist as per provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder but court has not agreed to its findings. A conjoint reading of both Rules 10, 10A inconsonance with Section 14, 15 and 18(3) would reveal that the path to be tread upon by the Board, post the production of the Juvenile has been clearly spelt-out where heinous offence has been alleged to be committed by a child, who has completed 16 years of age. Rule 10(5) clearly reflects that the Child Welfare Police Officer is to produce the statements of witnesses and other documents prepared during the course of investigation within a period of one month from the date of first production of a child before the Board. It is also required that a copy thereof is to be given to the child or parent or guardian of the child. The legislature in its wisdom has prescribed the period of one month to produce the statements of the witnesses and other documents with a copy to the child, subsequent to which, the Preliminary Assessment in case of heinous offences under Section 15 of the Act has to be completed. Meaning thereby, the copy of list of witnesses and other documents along with copy of final report is to be supplied to the child or his parents or to the guardian before making the Preliminary Assessment as per provisions of Section 15 of the Act. It is also stipulated in Section 15 read with Rules 10 and 10-A along with other provisions of the Act that three basic parameters are necessary to be followed in case of a heinous offence before passing the order under Section 18(3) for determining the need for trial of a child as an adult. The Board had to follow three parameters for making Preliminary Assessment as to whether there is a need for the trial of said child as an adult or not. It is to be seen as to how the Board as well as the Appellate Court has appreciated the circumstances of the commission of alleged offence, without the list of witnesses, documents relevant to the matter as well as the final report, which in any case the investigating authority is to file before the Board in less than two months of the production of the child before it.
...............................................
33. Law is an evolving concept and has to keep pace with time. This court has no hesitation to hold that the nefarious effects of the visual mediums like television, internet and social-media on adolescents are not being controlled, nor it appears that the government can control the same, to prevent its deleterious effect on the adolescents, due to the uncontrollable nature of technologies involved. The Nirbhaya case was an exception and not a general rule and all juveniles cannot be subjected and tried like adult without proper consideration of the overall social and psychological effects on their psyche."
6. After considering the rival submissions and the dictum of this Court cited above, this Court finds that the courts below have not complied the requirements of law in making preliminary assessment of the revisionist.
7. In Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu, Criminal Appeal No.950 of 2022 the Apex Court has held that appropriate and specific guidelines with regard to preliminary assessment under Section 15 of J.J. Act, 2015 are not there and had left it open for the Central Government and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to consider issuing guidelines or directions in this regard which may assist and facilitate the Board in making the preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act, 2015, but as yet nothing has been done.
8. The issue of preliminary assessments of juvenile under Section 15 of J.J. Act is a delicate and difficult task, which requires expertise. As of now, it is being done in arbitrary manner in absence of any definite parameters/ guidelines for the same. Therefore this Court deems it appropriate to formulate some guidelines for the Juvenile Justice Board and Children's Court to guide them in making preliminary assessment of juveniles for the purpose of the trial regarding commission of heinous offence as per Section 15 of J.J. Act, 2015, till the legislature formulates appropriate guidelines, as follows:-
GUIDELINES COMPLIANCE
(i) The Board will necessarily call the report of psychologist regarding the test of intelligence of child conducted regarding his ability to understand the consequences of his act [like Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence (B.K.T.); Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS); Bhatiya Battery Test of Intelligence or any other test]. The psychologist will indicate in his report clearly what test was performed for assessing mental ability and intelligence of the child so as to ascertain whether he is required to be tried as an adult, who has committed heinous offence. The E.Q. and I.Q. of such a child shall also be clearly indicated in the report of psychologist;
(ii) Clear finding shall be recorded regarding the child's physical and mental capability to commit heinous crime alleged and his ability to understand its consequences;
(iii) The Board shall direct the Probation Officer, or in case a Probation Officer is not available, the Child Welfare Officer or a social worker, to undertake social investigation into the case and submit a social investigation report, within a period of fifteen days from the date of first production of child before the Board [section 8(3)(e)];
(iv) Child Welfare Police Officer of the police station, or the special juvenile police unit to which such child is brought, shall, as soon as possible after apprehending the child, inform the probation officer, or if no probation officer is available, a Child Welfare Officer, for preparation and submission within two weeks to the Board, a social investigation report containing information regarding the antecedents and family background of the child and other material circumstances wherein the child committed the alleged offence likely to be of assistance to the Board for making the inquiry [Section 13(1)(ii)];
(v) In cases of heinous offences alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed the age of sixteen years, the Child Welfare Police Officer shall produce the statement of witnesses recorded by him and other documents prepared during the course of investigation within a period of one month from the date of first production of the child before the Board, a copy of which shall also be given to the child or parent or guardian of the child [Rule 10(5);
(vi) The number and nature of the previous implications of the child with details of names of complaint/complaints;
(vii) The number and nature of prior period of probation of child, prior commitments of child to child correctional centers and previous residential and community - based treatments;
(viii) Whether the alleged offense is part of a repetitive pattern of similar adjudicated offenses committed by child and whether implications have been made by same complainant;
(ix) Whether the child has previously absconded from the legal custody of a juvenile correctional center;
(x) The degree of intellectual disability or mental illness of child, if any;
(xi) The child's school record and education;
7. In view of the above, the judgments passed by the courts below are set aside.
8. The Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat, is directed to conduct fresh preliminary assessment of revisionist as per section 15(1) of the Act, in accordance with law within period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it.
9. The revision is allowed.
October 9, 2025 Abhishek