AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 962 of 2023

1- Xyz ---- Applicant Versus

1- State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Sariya, District :

Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order On Board

02/05/2024 Sd/- Sd/-

1. This revision is filed by the juvenile in conflict with law challenging the order dated 02.03.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Raigarh, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of Juvenile Justice Board, Raigarh (In short, “the Board”) passed under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2016 (Hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2015”).

2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the Board while invoking the provisions under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 conducted preliminary assessment of the mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which, applicant allegedly committed the offence. It is contended that the Court had not considered this fact that the report which was forwarded is incomplete as the panel constituted under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 had four members, however, the enquiry conducted and assessment and opinion is only by three members. He also pointed out that as per requirement, Board has to assigned reasons if the Board comes to the conclusion for referring the case to the Children Court for its trial but no specific reasons are assigned by the Board. The learned Appellate Court also has not considered the grounds raised in the appeal in appropriate manner and has dismissed the appeal arbitrarily without taking note of the specific provisions under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 and further the provisions under Rule 10-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (Hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2016”), therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Appellate court as also by the Board be set-aside.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that undisputedly applicant is involved in committing heinous offence of murder of his own parents (mother and father) along with six other co-

accused persons. He contended that age of applicant is above 16 years of age i.e. 17 years and 7 months and therefore, the Board has rightly invoked the provisions under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 and has made preliminary assessment of mental and physical capacity of applicant as also his ability to understand the consequences of the offence by referring the applicant for his examination, by the experts as provided under Rule 10-A of the Rules of 2016. Board based on the report has passed an order under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 of preliminary assessment and have assigned the reasons for referring the case to Children Court for trial of applicant, which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Hence, it does not call for any interference.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed along with the revision.

5. Applicant has placed on record the copy of charge-sheet filed by the police after completion of investigation. Perusal of the same would show that one secret information was received by the police that two dead bodies of Sukru Ram Yadav, S/o. Punaram Yadav and Manvati Yadav, W/o. Sukru Ram Yadav was lying. Based on the secret information police reached on the spot and thereafter, registered the crime. During investigation, applicant and other co-accused persons were arrested. The dead bodies were of father and mother of applicant and as per postmortem report, the death of two was on account of strangulation and was homicidal in nature. Considering the age of applicant he w