JUDGMENT :

1. It appears that name of the revisionist-juvenile has been disclosed in the memo of revision. This fault from the side of revisionist escaped detection by the Registry. The concerned Registry is directed to delete the name of the revisionist-minor from the title of the revision as fed and shown in the data on official website and represent him as "Minor 'X'.

2. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Aaarti Agrawal assisted by Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State-respondent. None appears for the respondent no. 2 despite service of notice.

3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh and further challenging the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board whereby it was ordered that the child in conflict with law shall be tried as an adult in terms of provisions of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 40 of 2018 under Sections 307, 342, 452, 354, 326k, 326kh, 302, 376, 511 IPC, Sections 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Nizamabad, District-Azamgarh.

4. Facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are as below:

A FIR was registered against the revisionist-accused person with the allegations that he used to harass the daughter, aged about 16 years, of the informant; the girl was compelled to change her mobile number. On 07.05.2018, the accused came to his house and asked from his daughter about the new number; when she refused to give the same, he locked the victim in the room and set her ablaze after pouring kerosene oil. She sustained 91% of the burn injuries and thereafter, succumbed to it. The matter came before the Juvenile Justice Board; the age determination inquiry was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board on 19.09.2020 and he was declared a juvenile aged about 17 years 4 months on the date of the occurrence. Thereafter, the Juvenile Justice Board proceeded to conduct an inquiry under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and came to a conclusion that the juvenile should be tried as an adult and transmitted the matter to the Sessions Court by an order dated 11.08.2021. Against the aforesaid order of the Juvenile Justice Board, an appeal was preferred on behalf of the juvenile accused before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Appeal No. 51 of 2021 and the same was dismissed and the order of the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed by the order dated 23.12.2021. Now, the juvenile has come in revision under the provisions of Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 challenging the order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the appellate Court.

5. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the impugned orders are arbitrary and bereft of cogent reasons and have been passed by non-application of mind; the grounds raised by the revisionist before the appellate court below have not been considered and no finding have been recorded thereon. It was incumbent upon the courts below to take assistance of psychologist/psychiatrist or other experts before deciding the appeal but no such measure was taken; the social investigation report clearly showed that the juvenile had no criminal tendencies; no adverse opinion was expressed by the people of the locality against the juvenile about his conduct, character and behaviour, but those facts have been ignored; the question and answers, which were put to the juvenile for the purpose of inquiry under Section 15 of the Act does not show that the accused had any intended mind or physical capacity to commit the crime and understand the consequences of his act. As the mental and physical capacity have not been fairly determined, therefore, the orders are not sustainable.

6. The provisions of Sect