Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 – ss.19(1), 18(3), 15, 2(13), 2(20) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 – Powers of Children’s Court – Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law – FIR against appellant-minor at the time of commission of offence, and others for assaulting the victim, leading to his death – Appellant being child in conflict with the law, the Juvenile Justice Board conducted preliminary assessment u/s.15 and opined that the appellant was having capability, mental as well as physical, to found involve in the act against him and liable to be tried as an adult, and committed the matter to the ‘Children’s Court’ as per s.18(3), to be tried as adult – Thereafter, the Children’s Court proceeded with the trial and convicted the appellant u/s.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for fourteen years and also ordered that the appellant should be kept in the place of safety till he attains the age of 21 years and thereafter, would be transferred to the jail – Said order upheld by the High Court – Correctness: Held: Under s.19, after the receipt of preliminary assessment from the Board u/s.15, the Children’s Court may decide that there is a need for trial of the child as an adult or there is no need for trial of the child as an adult and may conduct an inquiry as a Board – Expression ‘may’ occurring in Sub-section 19(1) and s.19(1)(ii) will have to be necessarily read as ‘shall’ – Thus, passing of an order u/s.19(1) is mandatory in nature and without passing an order u/s.19(1), the Children’s Court cannot proceed with the matter further – Furthermore, Rules, 2016, make it abundantly clear that s.19(1) is mandatory in nature – Sub rule (6) of r.13, by the use of the expression “shall”, mandates that the Children’s Court must record reasons for its decision as to whether the child in conflict with law is to be tried as a child or as an adult – Thus, it is clear that s.19(1) is not merely procedural in nature, but constitutes a substantive provision, obligating the Children’s Court to pass a reasoned order upon due application of mind – In the absence of compliance with s.19(1), which is determinative of the procedure to be followed by the Court, whether a Sessions trial or a summons case, the entire trial stands vitiated – On facts, there was non-compliance with s.19(1) – After committal of the case u/s.18(3), the Children’s Court took cognizance of the matter, and what the Children’s Court at this stage ought to have done is pass an order as contemplated u/s.19(1) on the preliminary assessment, as to whether it will try the appellant as a child or as an adult – However, without passing such order, the appellant was tried as an adult and was convicted and sentenced for the offence – Appellant is now 24 years old, at this stage, it would not be feasible for the Children’s Court to undertake a meaningful assessment of the mental capacity of the appellant that was prevailing at the time when crime occurred – Further, having regard to the fact that the trial has already been concluded and the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period exceeding six years, no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter to the Children’s Court – In view thereof, the conviction recorded by the Children’s Court, having been rendered in non-compliance with the mandate of s.19(1), cannot be sustained – Judgment of conviction and the consequential sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge and affirmed by the High Court set aside – Issuance of direction to Children’s Courts across the country that upon receipt of records pursuant to transfer/committal u/s.18(3) by the Juvenile Justice Board, the first duty of the Children’s Court, after taking cognizance of the matter, to pass a reasoned order u/s.19(1) upon due assessment of the ‘child in conflict with law’ before it proceeds further in the matter. [Paras 10.2-10.4, 12-15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.