Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
Pradeep Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi and etc - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 246 of 2019; Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4756 of 2019, 4757 of 2019
Decided On : 15-04-2019
Juvenile Justice - Preliminary Assessment - Sections 15, 401, 482 of Cr.P.C. - Indian Penal Code - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - [PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT] - [JUVENILE JUSTICE] - [Section 15 of the Act] - The court discussed the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which involves assessing the mental and physical capacity of the child to commit the offense, ability to understand the consequences of the offense, and the circumstances in which the offense was committed. The court highlighted that the assessment is not a trial but is to evaluate the capacity of the child to understand the alleged offense. The court also emphasized the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice Board to independently consider the circumstances of the alleged offense and apply a judicial mind, irrespective of expert opinions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Juvenile Justice Board-II and the judgment of the Appellate Court, which held that the accused children should be tried as children and not as adults. The case involved a heinous offense under the Indian Penal Code, and the courts assessed the mental and physical capacity of the accused children to commit the offense.
Finding of the Court:
The Court upheld the findings of the Juvenile Justice Board-II and the Appellate Court, concluding that the accused children should be treated as children and not as adults based on the assessment of their capacity to understand the offense and the circumstances in which it was committed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused children should be tried as adults or children based on the assessment of their mental and physical capacity to commit the offense and understand its consequences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the assessment of the accused children's capacity to understand the offense and the circumstances in which it was committed, as provided under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The court emphasized the independent consideration of circumstances by the Juvenile Justice Board and the limited scope of revisional powers.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the decision that the accused children should be treated as children and not as adults based on the assessment of their capacity to understand the offense and the circumstances in which it was committed.
Chander Shekhar, J.
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.5.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board-II ("JJB-II") and impugned judgment dated 23.1.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Dwarka Courts, Delhi ("Appellate Court") in Crl. Appeal No. 249/2018.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 01.05.2017 an FIR No. 153/2017 was registered at Police Station: Chhawala, South West Delhi under Sections 363, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") as a consequence of a statement made by the complainant, Pradeep Kumar ("petitioner", herein) who is the father of the deceased, Mandeep in this case. The petitioner made a complaint to the police alleging that, on the day of the incident, his son Mandeep had gone to his school at about 6:45 am but he did not come back home. Thereafter, the petitioner made inquiries from the friends of the deceased Mandeep regarding his whereabouts and one of the friends informed the petitioner, that he had seen Mandeep going on foot along with two other boys towards a nala. Subsequently, the petitioner reached the school of the deceased, wherein he found the police staff of PS: Chhawla, Delhi. The police showed the photograph of the deceased to the petitioner whom he identified as his son Mandeep, and he was further informed by the police about Mandeep's murder. Thereafter, statement of the petitioner was recorded in the police station and the afore-said FIR was registered. Subsequently, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and investigation was conducted and on 14.5.2018, after going through the material on record including the preliminary assessment reports as prepared by the experts, the charge-sheet and the annexed documents, the learned JJBII passed an order, to treat the CCLs "R" and "N" as children and further held that the CCLs be tried before the JJB-II itself, as children.
3. The relevant para of the said impugned order dated 14.5.2018 is reproduced hereunder:
"However, having gone through the material available on record including the charge sheet and annexed documents etc. and the age of the CCL, we are of the opinion that the circumstances do not make it as a fit case where the CCLs namely, "R" and "N" should be sent for trial as adults before the Children Court. We are of the opinion that they should be tried before this Board as CCLs only. Therefore, we decide the question of preliminary assessment in favour of CCLs "R" and "N" and against the prosecution. Let the CCLs be tried as children before this Board. However, we make it clear that nothing expressed therein, shall tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case."
4. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Appellate Court, however, the Appellate Court after going through the order of the JJB-II, as well as the observation regarding the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("the Act") upheld the order dated 14.5.2018 holding as under:
"23. ...I do not find any substance in these arguments of the Ld. counsel for the appellant. The JJ Board may take assistance of psychologist to assess the mental and physical capacity of CCL and his ability to understand the consequence of offence. It is well within the jurisdiction of the JJ Board to agree or disagree with the preliminary assessment report of the CCL submitted by such a psychologist to the JJ Board. But the circumstances, in which the alleged offence was committed has to be considered by the JJ Board independently without taking assistance of any expert. While considering the circumstances, in which the alleged offence was committed, the JJ Board has to apply a judicial mind. It is not necessary that if an expert opined that the mental and physical capacity of a CCL and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
