A minor may be tried as an adult if he understands the consequences of his actions, supported by psychological evaluations and the nature of the offenses.

2. Vide the impugned order, the order dated 12.04.2022, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, JJB-IV, East District, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi [hereafter ‘Magistrate’] had been upheld.

3. The FIR in this case was registered on the complaint of ‘S’ i.e. mother of the victim, who alleged that her minor daughter ‘K’, aged about six years, used to take tuition from the accused Amit (CCL) for the last three months. It was alleged that on 06.04.2021, her daughter had informed her that during tuition classes, the accused used to kiss her on her vagina after removing her undergarments. It was further alleged that CCL used to put his private part in the mouth of the victim. As alleged, when the victim would object or cry, the accused would beat her up and also threaten to kill her. It was further alleged that the accused had even threatened her with a knife and also threatened to throw her from the stairs; he would also drag her on the floor and would put his foot on her face to intimidate her. The said incidents continued for a period of one month, when finally the victim complained the same to her mother. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered on 09.04.2021.

4. The present petitioner/accused Amit was apprehended and arrested on 10.04.2021 and was produced before the Principal Magistrate, JJB-IV, East District, Vishwas Nagar, Shahadra, Delhi [hereafter ‘JJ Board’], who ordered him to be kept in protective custody at OHB-II. The statements of the victim and her mother were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on 12.04.2021. During investigation, age proof of the accused was obtained from his first attended school, as per which his date of birth was revealed as 21.08.2003. Thus, he was found to be aged about 17 years and 7 months at the time of commission of offence. The date of birth of the victim was found to be 03.02.2015; thus, she was aged about 6 years at the time of commission of offence.

5. Since the petitioner was below the age of 18, and was alleged of having committed a heinous offence, his Preliminary Assessment as mandated by Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2015 [hereafter ‘JJ Act’] was carried out. Eventually, vide order dated 12.04.2022, the learned JJ Board formed an opinion that the petitioner herein was to be tried as an adult, and the matter was sent to the learned Children Court. The relevant portion of the findings of the Board reads as under:

“6. In the SIR, it has been reported that the CCL is first time offender and student of class 12th. He comes from a financially poor family. In the physical, mental assessment and drug assessment report filed by the Clinical Psychologist, it is reported that the CCL does not suffer from any thought disorder or perceptual disorder. He does not have any history of psychoactive substance intake. In her assessment report, Clinical Psychologist has reported that initially during the counseling sessions, CCL had given a verbatim version that finding no one else in the house, CCL had put his private part in the mouth of the victim. She further reported that during the later sessions, CCL totally denied his involvement in the offence. Clinical Psychologist also reported that as per mental and psychometric sessions, CCL was found to be mentally fit and his thinking process was also found to be of abstract level i.e. he could think and act by understanding the pros and cons of the situation. His judgment was also found upto the mark and he