The lack of compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards in juvenile trials invalidates the conviction, necessitating adherence to due process under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Judgment :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The appellant herein – Child in Conflict with Law (for short, “the CCL”) has been convicted by the Children’s Court, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh vide impugned judgment dated 30.12.2022 for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced therein to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years with fine of ₹ 500/-; in default of payment of fine amount she has to undergo additional imprisonment for one month, as the same is heinous offence as defined in Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity “the Act of 2015”).

Prosecution Case :-

2. The CCL was juvenile and found involved in offence under Section 302 of the IPC, accordingly, she was charge- sheeted before the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board (for short “the JJB”) for the said offence. The JJB finding her more than 16 years and less than 18 years of age as the date of birth of the CCL is 15.07.2004 (vide Ex.P/26) and the date of offence is 22.08.2020, meaning thereby on the date of offence the CCL was aged about 16 years 1 month 7 days, proceeded to hold preliminary assessment under Section 15(1) of the Act of 2015 and called for Social Investigation Report (for short “SIR”) as well as the Psychologist Report, 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 she allegedly committed the offence. However, on 25.11.2020, the SIR was received to the JJB, but the report of the Psychologist was awaited. It appears from the record that on 20.01.2021, the 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, Katghora, District Korba constituted under the provisions of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, finding the CCL aged about 16 years 1 month and 7 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 SIR was not served to the CCL or her counsel or her guardian and also the report of the Psychologist was awaited.

3. The Children’s Court, Katghora, District Korba after receipt of case from the JJB and the preliminary inquiry report conducted under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2015, on 18.02.2021 framed the charges against the CCL for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC 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 has further held 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 the CCL for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years with fine of ₹ 500/-; in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo additional imprisonment for one month.

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. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that neither the JJB conducted the inquiry in accordance with Sect