2025:DHC:1386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANISH DAYAL, J.
CCL ‘K’ – Appellant
Versus
The State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 436 of 2022
Decided On : 03-03-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellants : Ashim Sood, Ashish Kumar, Prateek Kundu, Yamina Rizvi, Ragini Nagpal, Isha Khurana, Ashish Panday, Ekansh Gupta, Ankur Singhal, Subramaniam
For the Respondents : Aman Usman, Pankaj Yadav
(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 23 - Joint trial of a child in conflict with law and an adult accused - The court addressed whether a child can be tried jointly with an adult after a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) declaring the child psychologically and physically mature. The petitioner challenged the trial court's dismissal of his application to stop joint proceedings with an adult co-accused, arguing that Section 23 prohibits such joint trials. The court found that the language of Section 23 is clear and mandatory, emphasizing that a child in conflict with law should not be tried alongside an adult. The court ruled that the trial must be separated to comply with the provisions of the JJ Act. (Paras 1, 38, 76)
(B) Interpretation of 'as an adult' vs. 'with an adult' - The court clarified that a child tried 'as an adult' does not become an adult but is treated differently in terms of trial procedures. The court emphasized that the prohibition against joint proceedings must be upheld to protect the rights of the child. (Paras 60, 70)
JUDGMENT :
ANISH DAYAL, J.
| INDEX | |
| I. | PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT |
| II. | FACTUAL BACKGROUND |
| III. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |
| IV. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE |
| V. | ANALYSIS |
| A. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS | |
| B. PROCEDURE UNDER JJ ACT, 2015 | |
| C. DEFINITION OF ‘CHILD’ | |
| D. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CITED: RELEVANT EXTRACTS | |
| E. SECTION 23 OF JJ ACT: A DISSECTION | |
| F. ‘AS AN ADULT’ v ‘WITH AN ADULT’ | |
| VI. | CONCLUSION |
I. Proceedings before this Court
1. Whether trial proceedings of a ‘child’ alleged to be in conflict with law and a person ‘not a child’ i.e. an adult, could be held jointly, after a preliminary assessment of Juvenile Justice Board (‘JJB’ declaring the ‘child in conflict with law’ (‘CCL’) to be psychologically and physically mature, is the question that has come up for consideration before this Court in this petition.
2. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (CCL) to set aside order dated 23rd May 2022 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Trial Court, ASJ-6, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’) whereby the petitioner sought to stop the ongoing joint proceedings/trial of the petitioner with adult accused, Mr. Vivek Kumar, in connection with FIR No. 418/2016 under Sections 186/353/302/34 IPC at PS Nangloi.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 26th September 2016, information was received at Police Station Nangloi and the same was entrusted to SI Mahesh Kumar, who along with staff, reached the spot i.e. Government Boys Senior Secondary School Sultanpuri Road, Nangloi, Delhi. On reaching the spot, it was found that there was a lot of blood scattered at the main gate of the school and also, in class room no.108. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that the injured teacher, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, had already been taken to Sri Balaji Hospital in Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
4. On reaching the hospital, the injured teacher was found to be admitted vide MLC No. 6314/16, in which alleged history was written as “assault by sharp weapon at around 5PM at Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, SP Road, Nangloi by two school students Vivek and Master K.” In the hospital, eye witness Sh. Badan Singh/complainant, who is also the Vice Principal of the school, got the injured teacher admitted in the hospital and handed over his complaint to SI Mahesh Kumar, in which he alleged that, Vivek Kumar Jha is a 12th class student and Master K is also a 12th class student, whose name was struck off being an absentee and their class teacher was Mukesh Kumar, PGT (Hindi). Both students had threatened Mukesh Kumar as they felt that Master K’s name was struck down because of their class teacher. On the day of the incident on 26th September 2016, when teacher Mukesh Kumar was counting the answer sheets in class room No. 108, the complainant heard hues and cries and spotted the two students namely, Vivek Kumar and Master K, running from the stairs. He proceeded to catch them but was unsuccessful as they ran from the school after jumping over the wall. On reaching the classroom, the teacher Mukesh Kumar was found there lying in seriously injured condition. On the basis of the same, the present FIR came to be registered and investigation was taken up. During the course of treatment, the injured teacher was declared dead by the doctor at Sri Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar, Delhi and Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) was added in the case.
5. On 27th September 2016, the accused Vivek Kumar aged 19 years and accused Master K aged 17 years, were apprehended and clothes worn by them were seized and taken into possession. On the instance of accused Vivek, the weapon of offence i.e. knife and on the instance of Master K, punch used by him was recovered. Documents relating to the age of the accused were verified from Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Sultan Puri, Nangloi, according to which the date of birth of CCL is 29th October 1998 and co-accused Viv
The Juvenile Justice Act mandates separate trials for children in conflict with law and adults, emphasizing the child's rights and the need for a child-friendly judicial process.
Proper procedures must be followed in determining the age and maturity of a Child in Conflict with Law to ensure fair trial under the Juvenile Justice Act.
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.
The lack of compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards in juvenile trials invalidates the conviction, necessitating adherence to due process under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Procedure provided under Sections 15 and 19 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been held to be mandatory.
The court affirmed that the Board's reliance on social and counseling reports satisfied statutory requirements for trying a child as an adult under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.