Raj Kumar Turi, S/o. Madan Turi vs State of Jharkhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
Raj Kumar Turi, S/o. Madan Turi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr. Revision No. 129 of 2023
Decided On : 10-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar.
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, APP.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376, 506 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94, 15, 101, 102 –POCSO Act – Section 6 – Criminally intimidated – Legal proposition – Offence of rape – Criminal appeal – Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board – Heinous offence alleged – Held, Preliminary assessment is based on four aspects; (i) mental capacity to commit offence (ii) physical capacity to commit offence (iii) ability to understand the consequences of the offence and (iv) circumstances under which allegedly offence was committed – Preliminary assessment requires holistic evaluation for such an assessment Board may take assistance of experienced psychologists where Board constituted does not comprise child psychotics – Word 'may' would operate in a mandatory form and Board would be obliged to take assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social worker to try juvenile as an adult – Criminal revision petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Chand, J.

This criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of petitioner, namely, Raj Kumar Turi under section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order dated 03.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children’s Court, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2022 whereby the criminal appeal has been dismissed and the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No.16 of 2022 registered for the offence under section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 6 of POCSO Act has been affirmed.

2. Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Satish Prasad, the learned APP for the State and perused the material on record.

3. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned JJ Board dated 17.08.2022 it is found that during assessment, a set of question was passed to the child in conflict with law by the Board and he had answered those question as per best of his knowledge and believe. He was found evasive in answering some questions. He also tried to screen himself as a minor so that he could not face the trial as an adult. The questionnaire is made part of the record. Thereafter, on the basis of the questionnaire, it transpired that the CCL was capable to understand the consequence of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence. Therefore, the learned JJ Board reached to the conclusion that his trial should be conducted as an adult and the case was transferred for trial and disposal to Children Court's, Sahibganj under section 18(3) of the Act.

4. Aggrieved from this order, the appeal was preferred under section 101 of JJ Act, 2015 on behalf of the CCL-petitioner herein, which was registered Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2022. This criminal appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children’s Court, Sahibganj vide order dated 03.12.2022. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned appellate court dated 03.12.2022 it is found that the inquiry no.14 of 2022 dated 17.08.2022 conducted by the learned JJ Board, Sahibganj the questionnaire of preliminary assessment made by the JJ Board, Sahibganj is given hereunder:-

Question No.	Question to the CCL	Answer of the CCL
1.	What is address of your home?	Dhamni, P.S.-Sundar Pahari, District-Godda
2.	In which class, do you study?	I have never been to School.
3.	What is your date of birth?	I do not have knowledge of this.
4.	In the course of playing if your friend gets injured then where you will take to him?	To the Doctor
5.	Who arrests?	Police does arrest
6.	Did police arrest you?	Yes, they had taken me from my residence
7.	Whether one should go for intoxication?	Should not be done.
8.	On the bank of which river Sahibganj is situated?	I do not know.
9.	Who is pick-pocket and what they do?	I do not know.
10.	In which direction sun rises?	I do not know.
11.	Which religion you follow?	I follow mother Durga.
12.	What is consequence of committing offence?	I do not know.
13.	Whether one should do molestation or force against any women or girl or not?	It should not be done
14.	If somebody commits rape with any girl then what punishment should be given to him?	He should be sent to the jail.

5. In response to question no.13 and 14 the JJ Board held the child had full knowledge of the consequence of the offence as an adult and held that his trial should be conducted as an adult. From the perusal of the assessment report dated 08.07.2022, the age of the petitioner was assessed by the Medical Board to be 16 to 18 years. The Medical Board was constituted of three members one was Dr. Ritesh Verma, Dentist, PJMCH, Dumka, ano