The proceedings against a Child in Conflict with Law must comply strictly with statutory inquiry requirements for fair trial rights, or they may be quashed due to procedural violations.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. The appellant herein – Child in Conflict with Law (for short, “the CCL”) has been convicted and sentenced by the Children’s Court, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh vide impugned judgment dated 25.05.2019 for the heinous offences as defined in Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity “the Act of 2015”) which states as under:

Prosecution Story:-

2. The CCL was juvenile and found involved in offences as mentioned in the opening para of this judgment, accordingly, he was charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board (for short “the JJB”) for the said offences. The JJB finding him more than 16 years and less than 18 years of age as the date of birth of the CCL is 22.02.2000 on the basis of his mark-sheet of Class-II and Aadhaar Card (annexed with the original record) and the date of offence is 12.11.2016, meaning thereby on the date of offence the CCL was aged about 16 years 9 months 10 days, proceeded to hold preliminary assessment under Section 15(1) of the Act of 2015 and called for the Psychologist Report vide order dated 07.04.2017, with regard to mental and physical capacity of CCL to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offences. However, on 02.05.2017, the Psychologist report was received to the JJB and, thereafter on the same day JJB had preliminarily assessed the case of the CCL and passed order under Section 18(3) of the Act of 2015 and transferred the case to the Children’s Court having jurisdiction to try the offence i.e. the Children’s Court, Durg, District Durg constituted under the provisions of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, finding the CCL aged about 16 years 9 months and 10 days at the time of commission of offence and said act of the CCL is heinous offence under Section 2(33) of the Act of 2015, however, the copy of the Psychologist report was not served to either the CCL or his counsel or his guardian.

3. The Children’s Court, Durg, District Durg receipt the case from JJB on 16.05.2017 and after receipt of case from the JJB and the preliminary inquiry report conducted under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2015, on 04.07.2017 framed the charges against the CCL for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and held that the CCL has committed heinous offence and did not make any further inquiry as envisaged under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2015. The Children’s Court did not hold that there is a need for trial of the child as an adult as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and after trial, passed the impugned judgment and convicted ans sentenced the CCL for offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

4. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the CCL i.e. the present appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the same.

Submission of the parties:-

5. Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that neither the JJB conducted the inquiry in accordance with Section 15 of the Act of 2015 read with Rules 10 a