The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the Additional Sessions Judge to try Mustafa Kha, a juvenile offender, as an adult under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The court found sufficient evidence of his mental and physical capacity to understand the crime's nature and consequences.

1. Case Details

• Applicant: Mustafa Kha (Juvenile, aged 17 at the time of offense).
• Respondents: State of Maharashtra and the victim’s family.
• Offenses: Heinous crimes under IPC Sections 376(3), 376(DA), 354(D), 504, 506, and POCSO Act Sections 6, 8, 10, 12.

2. Initial Proceedings and Orders

• Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) ordered a preliminary assessment under Sections 14 and 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
• Found sufficient basis to try the juvenile as an adult.
• The Sessions Court confirmed the JJB's decision, prompting a revision application to the High Court.

3. Arguments by Applicant’s Counsel

• Procedural lapses in inquiry timelines and form usage (Section 15).
• Psychiatrist’s report was inconclusive regarding the juvenile's understanding of the crime.
• Claimed non-compliance with Section 19(1)(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act.

4. Arguments by Respondents

• Evidence from the Probation Officer’s Social Investigation Report (SIR) and Psychiatrist’s evaluation indicated the applicant's capability to comprehend and plan the offense.
• The applicant displayed a calculated, repetitive pattern of assault, exploiting the victim over 8-10 months.

5. Key Findings of the Court

• Mental and Physical Capacity: Psychiatrist's report indicated that the applicant was stable, oriented, and capable.
• Nature of Crime: Demonstrated planning, administration of sedatives, and manipulation of the victim.
• Applicability of Sections 15 & 19: Procedural errors in timelines or forms do not invalidate findings if substantive compliance is evident.

6. Precedents Cited

• Child in Conflict with Law v. State of Karnataka (2024): Timelines under Section 14(3) are directory, not mandatory.
• Ajeet Gurjar v. State of MP: If appeal exists, no need for further inquiry by the Children’s Court under Section 19(1)(i).
• Mumtaz Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra: Distinguished as the facts of this case clearly showed capacity and intent.

7. Final Judgment

The revision application was dismissed, affirming the trial of the applicant as an adult for heinous offenses.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

   • Section 14: Inquiry timelines.
   • Section 15: Preliminary assessment of mental and physical capacity.
   • Section 19: Transfer to Children’s Court for adult trial.

2. Indian Penal Code (IPC)

   • Sections 376(3), 376(DA): Sexual assault provisions.
   • Sections 504, 506: Threats and intimidation.

3. Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act

   • Sections 6, 8, 10, 12: Sexual offenses against minors.

4. Model Rules, 2016: Prescribes procedure and forms for SIRs and inquiries.

Ratio Decidendi:

The heinous nature of the crime, along with substantial evidence of the juvenile's capacity and understanding, justified the decision to try him as an adult under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Procedural lapses in timelines and forms were deemed non-fatal when substantive compliance and material evidence were present.

Subjects:

Juvenile Justice, Heinous Crimes, Procedural Compliance
Juvenile Justice Act, Heinous Offenses, Adult Trial for Juvenile, Sexual Assault