Allahabad High Court
X- Juvenile vs State Of U.P. & 3 Others on 21 November, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:181462 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2874 of 2024 Revisionist :- X- Juvenile Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Pavan Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
The present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as "J.J. Act, 2015") has been preferred against the preliminary assessment order dated 08.01.2024 passed under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, 2015 by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur, whereby the revisionist has been declared as an adult and his record has been transferred under Section 18(3) of the J.J. Act, 2015 to the Children Court as well as order dated 08.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Children Court, Ghazipur, whereby Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2024 under Section 101 of J.J. Act, 2015 (Suraj alias Neera Vs. State of U.P. and another) filed against the aforesaid order dated 08.01.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board, arising out of Case Crime No. 140 of 2023, under Section 376DA I.P.C. and Sections 5G/ 6 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur, has been dismissed.
Despite service of notice upon the informant/ opposite party No. 2, no one has put in appearance on his behalf. Hence this Court proceeds to hear this matter on merit.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P./ opposite party No. 1.
Brief facts of the case which are relevant and required to be mentioned are that the complainant who is father of the victim got the F.I.R. lodged on 15.03.2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 376D, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4(ii) POCSO Act against Gopi Bind, Sooraj Bind, Chandan Bind and the revisionist (juvenile) making allegations inter alia of committing rape on his daughter by the accused persons, in which after culmination of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted.
The revisionist was apprehended and sent to Juvenile home. The revisionist has been declared juvenile vide order dated 13.07.2023 by the concerned Juvenile Justice Board treating his age as 16 years and 2 days on the day of incident dated 14.03.2023. Thereafter, he was released on bail vide order of this Court dated 03.04.2024.
Since the revisionist was involved in heinous offence, therefore, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board for preliminary assessment under Section 15 of J.J.Act, 2015. After interaction with the child conflict with law (revisionist), the Juvenile Justice Board passed an order dated 08.04.2024 directing that there is need for trial of the revisionist as an adult, against which, a criminal appeal was preferred by the revisionist before the Children Court, but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2024.
Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist challenging the aforesaid impugned orders is that neither preliminary assessment of the revisionist was done within three months nor any order for extension of time was obtained from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, impugned preliminary assessment of the revisionist is vitiated. It is further submitted that psychological evaluation report is not reliable. The preliminary assessment of the revisionist has not been done without keeping the principle of presumption of innocence, therefore, the aforesaid impugned orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that Juvenile Justice Board, in exercise of its powers has rightly directed the revisionist to be tried as an adult on account of his involvement in heinous offence observing inter alia that the revisionist was matured enough to understand the consequence and effect of the offence committed by him. It is also submitted that if the Board has passed an order after three months, no prejudice is caused to the revisionist and merely on account of delay in passing the order under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, 2015, the order of Juvenile Justice Board cannot be vitiated.
Before delving into the matter, it would be appropriate to mention Sections 14, 15 and 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015, which read thus:-
Section 14. Inquiry by Board regarding child in conflict with law.?
(1) Where a child alleged to be in conflict with law is produced before Board, the Board shall hold an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of this Act and may pass such orders in relation to such child as it deems fit under sections 17 and 18 of this Act.
(2) The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of first production of the child before the Board, unless the period is extended, for a maximum period of two more months by the Board, having regard to the circumstances of the case and after recording the reasons in writing for such extension.
(3) A preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences under section 15 shall be disposed of by the Board within a period of three months from the date of first production of the child before the Board.
(4) If inquiry by the Board under sub-section (2) for petty offences remains inconclusive even after the extended period, the proceedings shall stand terminated:
Provided that for serious or heinous offences, in case the Board requires further extension of time for completion of inquiry, the same shall be granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(5) The Board shall take the following steps to ensure fair and speedy inquiry, namely:?
(a) at the time of initiating the inquiry, the Board shall satisfy itself that the child in conflict with law has not been subjected to any ill-treatment by the police or by any other person, including a lawyer or probation officer and take corrective steps in case of such ill-treatment;
(b) in all cases under the Act, the proceedings shall be conducted in simple manner as possible and care shall be taken to ensure that the child, against whom the proceedings have been instituted, is given child-friendly atmosphere during the proceedings;
(c) every child brought before the Board shall be given the opportunity of being heard and participate in the inquiry;
(d) cases of petty offences, shall be disposed of by the Board through summary proceedings, as per the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);
(e) inquiry of serious offences shall be disposed of by the Board, by following the procedure, for trial in summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);
(f) inquiry of heinous offences,?
(i) for child below the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be disposed of by the Board under clause (e);
(ii) for child above the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be dealt with in the manner prescribed under section 15.
Section 15. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board.?
(1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18:
Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts.
Explanation.?For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequences of the alleged offence.
(2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should be disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):
Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be appealable under sub-section (2) of section 101.
Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the period specified in section 14.
Section 18. Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law.?
(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a child irrespective of age has committed a petty offence, or a serious offence, or a child below the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence, [or a child above the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence and the Board has, after preliminary assessment under Section 15, disposed of the matter] then, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, the Board may, if it so thinks fit,-
(a) allow the child to go home after advice or admonition by following appropriate inquiry and counselling to such child and to his parents or the guardian;
(b) direct the child to participate in group counselling and similar activities;
(c) order the child to perform community service under the supervision of an organization or institution, or a specified person, persons or group of persons identified by the Board;
(d) order the child or parents or the guardian of the child to pay fine:
Provided that, in case the child is working, it may be ensured that the provisions of any labour law for the time being in force are not violated;
(e) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or fit person, on such parent, guardian or fit person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require, for the good behaviour and childs well-being for any period not exceeding three years;
(f) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care and supervision of any fit facility for ensuring the good behaviour and childs well-being for any period not exceeding three years;
(g) direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding three years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education, skill development, counselling, behaviour modification therapy, and psychiatric support during the period of stay in the special home:
Provided that if the conduct and behaviour of the child has been such that, it would not be in the childs interest, or in the interest of other children housed in a special home, the Board may send such child to the place of safety.
(2) If an order is passed under clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1), the Board may, in addition pass orders to-
(i) attend school; or
(ii) attend a vocational training centre; or
(iii) attend a therapeutic centre; or
(iv) prohibit the child from visiting, frequenting or appearing at a specified place; or (v) undergo a de-addiction programme.
(3) Where the Board after preliminary assessment under section 15 pass an order that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult, then the Board may order transfer of the trial of the case to the Children's Court having jurisdiction to try such offences.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that preliminary assessment order under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was passed after statutory period of three months. After going through the relevant provisions, I also find that Section 14 of the J.J. Act, 2015 itself relates to a procedural aspect and sub section 3 of Section 14 of the said Act provides for preliminary assessment of the suitability of treating the juvenile as an adult in a cases of heinous offence, does not create a right to the juvenile not to be assessed after the passage of three months from the date of first production of the juvenile before the Board. Besides, as the delay has adequately been explained by the State and as no prejudice has been caused to the revisionist, therefore, purely procedural nature of the provision to sub section 14(3) need not compel this Court to interpret 'shall, as 'shall' under all circumstances. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Child In Conflict With Law Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2024) 8 SCC 473, has held that time provided for completing the preliminary assessment under Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is directory, not mandatory. I also find that the Juvenile Justice Board while conducting the preliminary assessment of the revisionist has taken into consideration the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu and another, (2023) 12 SCC 401 and observed that the help of experienced psycho-social worker was taken, who has submitted his report dated 04.12.2023 on the basis of delinquent's social background, family history, mental status examination and a general psychiatric assessment. In the said report DTS and VSMS test were also used by the concerned expert. The specific finding has been recorded that as per report the delinquent appears to be physically healthy and mentally his social intelligence figure was found 94. The cognitive and social ability of the delinquent has been found like an adult. He is matured enough to understand the nature of the alleged offence.
In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders, which are wholly impeccable.
The instant criminal revision lacks merit, and accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.11.2024 Kashifa