Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, J.
XX - Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and another - Opposite Party(s)
Criminal Revision No. - 3690 of 2025
Decided On : 10-10-2025
For Revisionist(s) : Ashish Tripathi, Aushim Luthra
For the Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
A juvenile's trial status must be determined through thorough psychological assessments and expertise to comprehend the cognitive and emotional capacities critical to understanding consequences of dangerous behavior.
Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 15(1), Rule 10 A and Rule 11(2) - The court addressed the adequacy of preliminary assessment processes for juveniles charged with heinous crimes, necessitating expert psychological evaluation and clear science-based parameters for assessments. (Paras 7, 8, 15, 36)
(B) Emphasis on Emotional Intelligence Quotient - The court noted that evaluations must consider both cognitive maturity and emotional regulation, as developmental aspects critically influence criminal behavior among juveniles. (Paras 11, 14)
Facts of the case:
The revisionist, a minor implicated in serious offenses, challenged the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board that deemed him mature enough to be tried as an adult, arguing procedural inadequacies in his assessment. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that existing assessments fail to meet mandated criteria of rigorous psychological evaluation, necessitating a fresh, comprehensive assessment to ensure proper legal procedure for juveniles. (Paras 36, 37)
Issues: The central issue was whether the Juvenile Justice Board conducted a proper preliminary assessment according to the statutory requirements and whether reliance on expert psychological evaluation was adequately fulfilled.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Board's failure to adequately assess the child's understanding of the consequences of his actions and the lack of clear guidelines for evaluations led to an unjust determination regarding his trial status. (Paras 10, 12, 36)
Result: The revision was allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. preliminary assessment under j.j. act is crucial. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. vagueness in the preliminary assessment process. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. understanding cognitive and emotional maturity in juveniles. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. need for guidelines in assessing juveniles in conflict with the law. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. procedures for assessing juvenile offenders must be clearly defined. (Para 24 , 25 , 30) |
| 6. orders quashed; need for fresh assessment under j.j. act. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
1. Heard Sri Abhishit Jaiswal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the trial court record.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed to set and aside the judgement and order dated 30.11.2023 passed by Additional and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Prayagraj, as well as order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj, Sessions Trial No.43 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 0463 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 and 120-B I.P.C, Police Station George Town, District Prayagraj.
3. The Juvenile Justice Board, after determination of the age of the revisionist as 17 years, 6 months and 27 days, directed his preliminary assessment as per Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Before the Board, revisionist was asked seven questions and it was held that the revisionist was capable of understanding the consequences of the act of murder and other offences committed by him and he was sufficiently mature as per the report of D.P.O. He was found implicated in two earlier offences also and hence he was held liable to be tried as a adult by the Juvenile Justice Board by the order dated 04.12.2020. On appeal before the Children's court, revisionist was held accordingly and his appeal was dismissed by the order 30.11.2023 by Children's court. The Children's court has considered the report of psychologist on record but without considering its veracity.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that revisionist was not named in the FIR. He has been falsely implicated in this case by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Preliminary assessment of the revisionist was not conducted as per the requirement of Section 15 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 only proviso which mandates that the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts for conducting preliminary assessment into heinous offences committed by child by the Board.
5. Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2, no one has turned up to oppose this criminal revision.
6. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that Juvenile Justice Board and Appellate court have rightly made preliminary assessment of the revisionist as per Section 15 of the act.
7. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the provisions of Section 15 (1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are absolutely vague, although preliminary assessment of the child in conflict with law is provided in the aforesaid section with the help of psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts, but process of determination has not been provided anywhere. Rule 10 A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 also provides that Board may take the assistance of psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts who have experience of working with children in difficult circumstances. It further provides that a panel of such experts may be made available by the District Child Protection Unit, whose assistance can be taken by the Board or could be accessed independently. Rule 11 (2) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, provides that befor
