Preliminary assessment for heinous offences is an inquiry into capacity at the time of the offense. Statutory timelines are directory, and delays caused by judicial proceedings do not invalidate findings, as the assessment distinguishes juvenile status based on developmental maturity at the incident time rather than current age.

JUDGMENT :

ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Budaun in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2013 (Victim A Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.)

3. Facts giving rise to present revision are that an appeal was preferred by the revisionist, Urvesh @ Pravesh Kumar before the Children’s Court pursuant to direction given in the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2019 [Urvesh @ Pravesh Kumar (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. and Another]. wherein, vide order dated 14.09.2021, this Court quashed the order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the learned 8^th Additional Sessions Judge/POCSO Court, Budaun in Misc. Case No. 95 of 2018 and had directed the Sessions Court to pass a fresh order after considering the entire evidence and material. After consideration, a fresh order dated 13.10.2023 was passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Budaun in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2013 [Victim “A” v. State of U.P. and Anr.] wherein the Special Judge has passed an order whereby the revisionist was ordered to be treated a major during the trial. The revisionist is working as worker at sweet shop and earns merely Rs. 7000/- per month to earn his bread and butter. In the present matter, an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 15 of 2018 was lodged on 23.01.2018 by the informant, the victim, under Section 376 I.P.C. at Police Station- Kadar Chowk, District- Budaun against the revisionist wherein it has been alleged that the revisionist had sexually assaulted the victim. In the matter, investigation was conducted and a charge-sheet dated 10.03.2018 was submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act whereupon cognizance of the matter was taken by the 8^th Additional Sessions Judge/ POCSO Court, Budaun on 25.04.2018. The date on which the alleged sexual harassment was committed, the age of the revisionist was 17 years 11 months and 19 days, and hence a minor. The date of birth of the minor is 03.02.2000 which is clearly stated in the School Leaving Certificate of the revisionist dated 28.01.2018. Subsequent to the cognizance being taken by the 8^th Additional Sessions Judge/POCSO Court, Budaun, an application was preferred by the revisionist on 12.02.2018 through his father before the trial court/POCSO and his plea for being treated as a juvenile was initially rejected by the trial court on 04.08.2018, but the High Court, on 14.09.2021, set aside the order dated 04.08.2018 and directed reconsideration, pursuant to which the trial court on 25.11.2021 declared him a juvenile. Following a mental assessment under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Juvenile Justice Board on 12.12.2022 directed that he be tried as a juvenile; however, on an appeal by the victim, the Special Judge (POCSO Court), Budaun, vide order dated 13.10.2023, set aside the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board and held that the revisionist should be treated as a major during trial.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argues that the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Children Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Budaun, in Criminal Appeal No.