| Headnote |
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – ss. 3, 9, 15, 18, 19 – Despite the appellant-accused having been found to be a juvenile and thus, a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) on the date of the incident in 2016, charge sheet against the accused was filed directly before the Sessions Court – Appellant was convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 342, 201 r/w 302, IPC and s.6, POCSO Act – Conviction and sentences affirmed by High Court – Correctness: Held: Even before the result of investigation was filed, the fact regarding the accused being a CICL was well known to the IO (PW- 25), the prosecution and the trial Court as well – Even assuming that the Sessions Court was designated as a Children’s Court, there was no option for the said Court but to forward the child to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for further directions – There was flagrant violation of the mandatory requirements of ss. 15 and 19 of the JJ Act – Neither was the charge sheet against the appellant filed before the Board nor was any preliminary assessment conducted u/s.15, so as to find out whether the appellant was required to be tried as an adult – In absence of a preliminary assessment being conducted by the Board u/s.15, and without an order being passed by the Board u/s.15(1) r/w s.18(3), it was impermissible for the trial Court to have accepted the charge sheet and to have proceeded with the trial – Thus, the proceedings undertaken by the Sessions Court in conducting trial of the CICL, convicting and sentencing him were in gross violation of the mandate of the Act and hence, vitiated – Further, pursuant to the trial being concluded, the trial Court having realized the gross illegality in the proceedings, dealt with the appellant as per the provisions of the JJ Act on the aspect of sentencing – However, ex facie, the said action does not stand to scrutiny because the very foundation of the prosecution case was illegal to the core – Entire proceedings taken against the appellant right from the stage of investigation and the completion of trial were vitiated being in gross violation of the mandatory requirements of the JJ Act – Impugned judgment quashed and set aside. [Paras 31, 37-41, 44 and 50] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Appellant was convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 342, 201 r/w 302, IPC and s.6, POCSO Act – Offence was committed by appellant-accused in the year 2016 – Despite him being a juvenile and thus, a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) on the date of the incident, charge sheet against him was filed directly before the Sessions Court (statedly designated as a Children’s Court) and he was never subjected to preliminary assessment by the Board to find out whether he should be tried as an adult – Such exercise if to be done at this stage: Held: No – Directing such an exercise at this stage would be sheer futility because now the appellant is nearly 23 years of age – At this stage, there remains no realistic possibility of finding out the mental and physical capacity of the appellant to commit the offence or to assess his ability to understand the consequences of the offence and circumstances in which he committed the offence in the year 2016 – Present case not fit to warrant de novo proceedings against the appellant by taking recourse to the provisions of the JJ Act. [Paras 47, 48 and 46] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – ss. 3, 9, 15, 18, 19 – Prosecution of a Child in Conflict with Law – Provisions to be followed – Discussed. |
