ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenging order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No. 120/2023.

2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Court below has held that offence committed by juvenile is heinous in nature, therefore, he is to be tried as an adult. It is submitted that no help of any Psychologist or expert was taken by the Court while considering the report of Board. It is submitted by him that no facts could be brought before Court which can show that juvenile is incapacitated to understand the consequences of his act. It is submitted that Section 15 is to be treated as a mandatory section, though proviso is worded to be obligatory, but in fact, same is to be construed as mandatory in nature as held by Apex Court in case of Barun Chandra Thakur vs Master Bholu and another, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593. It is further submitted that assessment of the offence and ability of the child to understand the consequences of his act is to be considered in a broad perspective and help of Psychologist and expert is to be taken in the matter. Apex Court has held that mental capacity and ability to understand the consequences of a child in conflict with law is not a routine task. Section 15 is to be read as mandatory in nature. Expression 'may' in the proviso to Section 15(1) would operate in mandatory form and Board ought to take help and assistance of expert in the matter. In this case also, no help of a Psychologist or an expert is taken into the matter to understand the mental capacity of the child to understand the consequences and totality of his mental condition. In these circumstances, order is bad in law.

3. Government Advocate appearing for State opposed the revision. It is submitted that Court has given reasoning for taking a decision that juvenile is to be tried as an adult. Statement recorded has been considered. Court has also found that there was no circumstances which can show that juvenile is incompetent to understand the consequences of the act.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. Apex Court in the matter of Barun Chandra Thakur (supra) has held that proviso to Section 15 is to be read as mandatory in nature. A Judge is not equipped to understand the psychology of a child. An expert or a Psychologist is better suited to understand the circumstances and mental condition of a child and his capacity to understand consequences of his act.

Therefore, Court are obliged to take assistance of Psychologists or experts in the case before arriving at a conclusion that juvenile is to be tried as an adult.

6. Considering aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by 1st Additional Session Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No. 120/2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court to pass orders treating proviso to Section 15 as mandatory in nature.

7. With aforesaid direction, revision is disposed off. 8. C.C. as per rules. (VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE vkt