IMPORTANT POINT
Determination of juvenility – Preliminary assessment required under Section 15 of J.J. Act is significant, and cannot be considered a mere formality due to consequences attached to it – It is a delicate task requiring expertise and has significant implications for trial of case – Children’s Court cannot brush aside its duty of independent assessment by relying on assessment report by Board under Section 15 of J.J. Act.

JUDGMENT

K. Surender, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.6.2019 in SC PCS No. 70 of 2018 passed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the Act’). The appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Sections 364, 377, 302, and 201 of IPC, and was sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 29.6.2017, a complaint was filed by PW1 stating that his younger son, who was around 10 years old at the time, had been missing from his home since 28.6.2017 without any information. Upon receipt of the complaint, PW12 registered a case in Cr. No. 152 of 2017 under Section 363 of IPC and issued a FIR.

3. On 5.7.2017, it was found that the CCTV camera near Badi Masjid, Barkas, had recorded visuals of the missing boy on 28.6.2017 in the company of one person, later identified as the appellant herein. Inquiries revealed that the appellant was a minor at the time. Subsequently, on 6.7.2017, PW12 and other police personnel went to the appellant’s residence and found that he was 17 years old. The appellant was then taken to the police station, accompanied by his father, and was produced before PW13.

4. PW13 interrogated the appellant, showing him the CCTV footage that depicted the missing boy in his company. Upon questioning, the appellant allegedly confessed to kidnapping PW1’s minor son (deceased), committing unnatural intercourse with the deceased on the terrace of Government High School, Barkas, and then killing him by twisting and binding his hands and legs with a cloth before throwing the dead body to the side of the terrace. At the appellant’s instance, the dead body of the deceased was recovered and identified by PW1.

5. Since a prima facie case was made out against the appellant, the Section of law was altered from Section 363 of IPC to Sections 364, 377, 302, and 201 of IPC, along with Sections 5(m) read with 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, the appellant was produced before the Probation Officer as per the Juvenile Justice Act.

6. Initially, the case was registered under Sections 364, 377, 302, and 201 of IPC and Sections 3 read with 4 of the POCSO Act before the Juvenile Justice Board, as the appellant was classified as a child in conflict with the law. Subsequently, after assessing the appellant, the Juvenile Justice Board transferred the case to the Children’s Court (Court of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, 2012), deeming it fit to be tried by the Children’s Court. The Board concluded that the appellant should be tried as an adult. Thereafter, the appellant was produced before the Children’s Court, which, upon due assessment, determined that the appellant should be tried as an adult, as specified under Section 19(1)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court took cognizance of the case against the appellant and framed charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 364, 377, 302, and 201 of IPC.

7. Learned Sessions Judge found the death of the deceased to be homicidal, based on the Post-Mortem Examination (PME) and Inquest Reports. Relying on circumstantial evidence, including the identification of the appellant by PWs 1 to 4 (his neighbors), the discovery of the deceased’s body at the instance of the appellant, Ex.P10/DNA report confirming that the deceased was the son of PW2 (mother of the deceased), the CCTV footage filed in CD-ExP11, which showed the deceased last seen in the appellant’s company, and the medical evidence supporting the prosecution’s case, the Court concluded that the appellant had performed unnatural intercourse with the deceased. This was corroborated by Injury No. 4 in the PME report. Furthermore, the murder was establis