Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a conviction of a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) for offences under Sections 366 and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that on 15.4.2018, the CCL, then aged about 16 years 10 months and 20 days, kidnapped a two-and-a-half-year-old girl belonging to a Scheduled Tribe from the lawful guardianship of the complainant and committed forcible penetrative sexual assault upon her. An FIR was registered by Hirekerur Police Station, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The matter was initially placed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Haveri, which, by order dated 14.9.2018, directed that the case be transferred to the Children’s Court for trial of the CCL as an adult. The Children’s Court, by order dated 5.8.2019, confirmed that the CCL should be tried as an adult. Subsequent trial before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Haveri, resulted in the conviction of the CCL on 9.4.2021 and imposition of rigorous imprisonment for ten years under POCSO, life imprisonment under the SC/ST Act, and five years under IPC, along with fines. The CCL preferred a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court, challenging the conviction primarily on the ground that the preliminary assessment under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 was not properly conducted. The appellant contended that the Juvenile Justice Board failed to adequately assess his mental and physical capacity and his ability to understand the consequences of the alleged offences, relying merely on a headmaster’s certificate regarding age and a psychologist’s report without requiring ossification or DNA tests. It was further argued that the Board passed an order without granting any opportunity to the CCL to rebut the assessment, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and breach of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The appellant also asserted that the Children’s Court, after the transfer of the case, did not undertake a fresh enquiry as required by law and passed a cryptic order without application of mind. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents emphasizing the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards when determining whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult. The State, on the other hand, defended the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children’s Court, arguing that they were based on proper material including the age certificate and the psychologist’s report, and that the orders had attained finality as they were not challenged earlier. The arguments were heard by the High Court, which reserved the matter for judgment. The available text does not reveal the final outcome of the appeal.
Headnote
A) Juvenile Justice - Preliminary Assessment - Sections 15, 18(3) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Mandatory assessment of mental and physical capacity - It was contended on behalf of the Child in Conflict with Law that the Juvenile Justice Board failed to conduct a proper preliminary assessment, relying solely on the headmaster's age certificate and a psychologist's report without obtaining ossification or DNA tests, and that the Board did not provide an opportunity to rebut the assessment, thus contravening the procedure required under the Act and violating audi alteram partem (Paras 8-10). B) Child in Conflict with Law - Trial as Adult - Role of Children's Court under Juvenile Justice Act - Fresh enquiry requirement - The appellant argued that after transfer of the case from the Juvenile Justice Board, the Children's Court is obligated to conduct a fresh enquiry and satisfy itself that the child ought to be tried as an adult; however, the Children's Court passed an order on 5.8.2019 without such enquiry and without affording the child an opportunity to present his case, rendering the procedure flawed (Paras 4, 8, 14). C) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Articles 14, 19, 21 Constitution of India - Violation of natural justice - The appellant submitted that the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children's Court were passed without hearing him, thereby infringing his fundamental rights to equality, liberty, and life, and that the impugned conviction was vitiated by these procedural violations (Paras 10, 12). D) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Section 374(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The appeal challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 9.4.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Haveri, in Special Sessions Case No.31 of 2018, raising primarily the issue of improper preliminary assessment under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (Paras 1, 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children's Court followed the correct procedure under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 in determining that the Child in Conflict with Law should be tried as an adult, and whether the orders passed suffered from non-application of mind and violated principles of natural justice.
Law Points
- Proper procedure for preliminary assessment under Sections 15 and 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act
- 2015 requires assessment of mental and physical capacity of the child and ability to understand consequences
- orders must be passed after hearing both sides
- failure to do so violates natural justice and Articles 14
- 19
- 21 of the Constitution.
