JUDGMENT

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J.

Earlier

Aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram treating the child-in-conflict with law (for short, 'CCL') (Master Bholu as an adult) and recommending the transfer of the trial under section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter to be referred as 'J.J. Act') to Children's Court; and appellate Court affirmed the said order vide judgement dated 13.12.2022, the child in conflict with law has come up before this Court.

2. Vide order dated 20.12.2017, the Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram had passed an order directing the child-in-conflict with law (CCL) (hereinafter referred as 'minor accused') and had treated the minor accused as an adult and had transferred the trial to children's Court. The minor accused had challenged the said order before the Sessions Court which had affirmed the same. After that, he had challenged both the orders before this Court and vide order dated 11.10.2018 this Court set aside the order passed by Principal Magistrate as well as the Children's Court and remanded the manner to the Board for afresh consideration.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by this Court, father of deceased as well as CBI had gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Vide judgement dated 13.07.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.950 of 2022 titled as Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu and another and in Criminal Appeal No.951 of 2022 titled as CBI v. Bholu, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had agreed with the final directions passed by this Court but not agreed with the reasoning. It would be appropriate to refer para Nos. 84 and 85 of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which reads as follows:

"84. The mental age as per the applicable formula based on the IQ of the child would be less than 16 years. The Board, provided only 30 minutes time to the child, his lawyer, his father and also to the counsel for CBI to peruse the 35 pages of the report, which was too little to peruse and comprehend and given any evidence in rebuttal. The CBI counsel had admitted that it did not have officers or the required infrastructure to conduct the investigation under the Act, 2015. For all the above reasons, the High Court remitted the matter to the Board after setting aside both the orders of the Board and the Children's Court to consider afresh and assess the intelligence, maturity, physical fitness and as to how the child in conflict with law was in a position to know the consequences of the offence. The exercise was to be undertaken within a period of six weeks. The High Court further directed that while conducting the preliminary assessment afresh, opinion of the psychologist of the Government Hospital (Institute of Mental Health, University of Health Sciences, Rohtak) be obtained. This Court may not agree with the reasoning given by the High Court on all counts and also the direction given for conducting further tests. However, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the ultimate result of the High