Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision by Juvenile in Heinous POCSO Case — Trial as Adult Upheld. Mental Capacity and Circumstances of Offence Justify Transfer Under Section 15 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 Despite Procedural Delays.

Criminal revision application challenging the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and Additional Sessions Judge directing trial of CCL No.1 as an adult for heinous offences under POCSO Act and IPC.

CCL No.1 sought setting aside of the orders directing his trial as an adult.

CCL No.1 was aggrieved by the order of the JJB and the dismissal of his appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, which directed his trial as an adult for heinous offences.

The JJB initially ordered trial as adult without proper inquiry; that order was set aside by the High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.32/2020 and remanded. On remand, the JJB conducted inquiry under Sections 14 and 15 and again ordered trial as adult. The appeal by CCL No.1 and CCL No.5 was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

Whether the Juvenile Justice Board conducted a proper preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act before ordering trial as adult? Whether the timeline under Sections 14 and 15 of the JJ Act is mandatory or directory? Whether there was non-compliance of Section 19(1)(i) of the JJ Act requiring a separate order by the Children's Court? Whether the heinous nature of the crime alone can justify trial as adult?

Applicant argued that the inquiry was not conducted within the timeline, the SIR and psychiatric report were not cogent, and there was non-compliance of Section 19(1)(i). State argued that the timeline is directory, the SIR and psychiatric report were sufficient, and the Additional Sessions Judge being the Children's Court satisfied Section 19(1)(i). Informant adopted the submissions of the State.

The timeline under Sections 14 and 15 of the JJ Act is directory, not mandatory. The JJB conducted a proper preliminary assessment based on the SIR and psychiatric report, which indicated that CCL No.1 had the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and understood its consequences. The heinous nature of the crime, combined with the SIR and psychiatric report, justified the trial as adult. Since the Additional Sessions Judge is also the Children's Court, no separate order under Section 19(1)(i) is required.

The J.J.B. conducted the inquiry and preliminary assessment in terms of Sections 14 and 15 of the J.J. Act. The timeline provided under Sections 14 and 15 of the J.J. Act is directory and not mandatory. The heinous nature of crime per se could not be the justification to try the CCLs as an adult. The SIR and the report of the Psychiatrist are sufficient to conclude that the CCLs were mentally and physically capable to commit the offence.

Crime No.737/2018 registered at Arni Police Station. CCLs arrested and granted bail by JJB. Informant filed application Exh.52 on 3rd December 2018 to try CCLs as adults. JJB initially allowed application on 1st April 2019 without proper inquiry. CCL No.1 appealed to Additional Sessions Judge, who dismissed appeal on 13th January 2020. CCL No.1 filed Criminal Revision Application No.32/2020 in High Court, which was allowed on 28th June 2023 and matter remanded to JJB for fresh inquiry. JJB conducted inquiry and again allowed application on 2nd August 2023. CCL Nos.1 and 5 appealed to Additional Sessions Judge, who dismissed appeal on 30th November 2023. CCL No.1 filed present revision on 18th November 2024.

• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: 14, 15, 19(1)(i), 101(2)
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376(3), 376(DA), 354(D), 504, 506, 34
• Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012: 6, 8, 10, 12