Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 765
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Sagar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2059 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8113 of 2024)
Decided On : 13-07-202
Important Points
(1) Juvenility – Passing of order under Section 19(1) of J.J Act is mandatory in nature – Unless Children’s Court arrives at a decision as to whether child in conflict with law is to be tried as an adult or not, it cannot proceed further with the matter.
(2) Even a remote possibility that a child in conflict with law, who ought to be tried as a child, is subjected to an adult trial, such adult trial is wholly impermissible and it strikes at very root of protective framework envisaged under J.J. Act.
Subject
Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 19 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 – Rule 13 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Conviction and sentence – Rejection of plea of juvenility – Passing of order under Section 19(1) of Act is mandatory in nature – Unless Children’s Court arrives at a decision as to whether child in conflict with law is to be tried as an adult or not, it cannot proceed further with the matter – In a case where Children’s Court decides that child in conflict with law is to be tried as an adult, it is required to follow procedure of a Sessions trial in terms of Section 19(1)(i) – This statutory obligation is substantive in nature and not merely procedural – Scheme of Act and Rules ensures that no child is subjected to an adult trial without due compliance with statutory safeguards – Absence of order under Section 19(1), Children’s Court may inadvertently bypass its jurisdiction akin to that of a Board and assume jurisdiction of a Sessions Court/Children’s Court, which is impermissible. (Paras 10.3.1, 10.4.1, 10.4.2 and 10.4.4)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 15 and 19 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 – Rule 13 – Murder – Conviction and sentence – Rejection of plea of juvenility – Even a remote possibility that a child in conflict with law, who ought to be tried as a child, is subjected to an adult trial, such adult trial is wholly impermissible and it strikes at very root of protective framework envisaged under the Act – Intention of Act is to have Section 19(1) as mandatory – In present case, appellant is now 24 years old – At this stage, it would not be feasible for Children’s Court to undertake meaningful assessment of mental capacity of appellant that was prevailing at the time when crime occurred – Having regard to fact that trial has already been concluded and appellant has undergone incarceration for a period exceeding six years, no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter to Children’s Court – Conviction recorded by Children’s Court, having been rendered in non-compliance with mandate of Section 19(1) of Act, cannot be sustained – Judgment of conviction and consequential sentence set aside and Appellant acquitted. (Paras 10.5, 10.8, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
After investigation, police filed chargesheet against Appellant, alleging that Accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 341 read with Sections 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Primary question that arises for consideration, before adverting to merits of the case, is whether conviction and sentence imposed by Children’s Court against Appellant, and subsequently affirmed by High Court, can be sustained in absence of an order under Section 19(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?
Findings of Court:
Appellant is acquitted. Appellant is on bail, bail bonds executed by Appellants stands discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Mr. Ranbir Singh Kundu, Adv. Ms. Kirti Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Mr. Shitanshu Saklani, Adv. Mr. Shubham Mavi, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Anuj Sehrawat, Adv. Mr. Sahil Gandass, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhull, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anil Thakran, Adv. Ms. Abhilasha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Amit Yadav, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ayush Rao, Adv. Mr. Bhavesh Kumar Verma, Adv.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background regarding the juvenile's conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. identification of the mandatory requirement of applying section 19(1) of the jj act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. the duty of the children's court to pass a reasoned order under section 19(1) of the jj act prior to trial is mandatory. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. non-compliance with section 19(1) of the jj act vitiates the entire trial proceedings. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final order of acquittal due to procedural illegality and directions to lower courts. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
ARAVIND KUMAR J.
1. Heard. Leave Granted.
I. BRIEF FACTS:
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the instant case are as follows:
2.1. The prosecution alleges that on 21.10.2018, the police received information from Civil Lines Police Station, Kaithal, regarding the death of Mandeep Kumar, who had been admitted to Cygnus Hospital with injuries sustained in a quarrel. Inspector Rohtash Kumar and other police officials reached the hospital, where they found that Mandeep had been brought dead and recorded the statement of the complainant Mandeep Kumar (PW11), who had stated that himself, Aman (PW12), and the deceased Mandeep had gone to the Baba-Rajpuri fair on a motorcycle and while returning around 1:30 p.m., seven masked persons on two motorcycles intercepted them and one of the assailants, identified as accused ‘S’- the Appellant herein,1[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellant’.] struck the deceased on the left temporal region with an iron pipe, after which the others attacked him with knives and a rod. When the complainant and Aman intervened and tried to stop, he was also attacked and suffered an injury to his right little finger. As passersby approached on hearing their cries, the accused fled towards village Garhi. The deceased was taken first to Government Hospital, Kaithal, then referred to PGI Chandigarh, and later admitted to Cygnus Hospital, where he died due to the injuries.
2.2. The police carried out investigation following the incident by registering an FIR under Sections 148, 323, 341, 302 read with 149 Indian Penal Court (IPC for short), preserving the body for postmortem, preparing the site plan, photographing the scene of crime, collecting blood samples, and recording witness statements under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C for short). Postmortem was conducted on 22.10.2018, and deceased’s clothes and shoes were seized. On 23.10.2018, four co-accused namely Pawan alias Pammu, Raman alias Kaka, Sandeep, and Vikash alias Babbu were arrested, and on the next day their disclosure statements were recorded, in which they confessed that they, along with the appellant had conspired to assault the deceased using an iron rod, knife, and danda. The conspiracy was hatched to teach a lesson to the deceased for hurling abuses upon the mother and sister of the appellant (child-in-conflict with law).
2.3. Pursuant to the disclosure statements, recoveries were made: an iron pipe from accused Vikash, a danda from accused Raman, a Honda Shine motorcycle from Sandeep, and a KTM Duke motorcycle and a knife from the Appellant. The police also prepared additional site plans, demarcation memos, collected photographs, and verified call detail records, which disclosed the Appellant and Vikash were in the vicinity of village Baba-Ladana around the relevant time, thereby corroborating parts of the prosecution case.
2.4. After investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the Appellant, alleging that the Accused has committed offences punishable under sections 302, 323 and 341 read with section 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2.5. As the Appellant was a minor at the time of commission of offence (16 and half years), he was produced before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kaithal,2[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the JJ Board’.], who carried a preliminary assessment as prescribed under Section 15 of Th
