IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.02.2026 SAHAB SINGH .....PETITIONER Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present:- Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

NEERJA K. KALSON , J .

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, a child in conflict with law, assailing the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal whereby the appeal against Judgement and order dated 30.03.2022, passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board under Section 18 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the JJ Act") was dismissed, vide which the petitioner was declared as an adult and was directed to be tried as such by the Children Court at Palwal.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner aged above 16 years and below 18 years on the date of occurrence stands accused of committing a heinous offence punishable under Section 376, 346 IPC, 1860 and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Upon completion of preliminary assessment as mandated under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Juvenile Justice Board vide judgment and order dated 30.03.2022 recorded a finding that the petitioner possessed the requisite mental and physical capacity to commit the alleged offence and also had the ability to understand its consequences, whereafter it recommended that the petitioner be tried as an adult.

3. Aggrieved by the said recommendation, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, which after due consideration, affirmed the findings of the Board. The petitioner has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was below 16 years of age at the time of the alleged sexual intercourse and had only just crossed 16 years of age on the date of recovery of victim and therefore is not liable to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board or the Children’s Court, being a juvenile. Furthermore, the petitioner was assessed as per provisions of Section 15 JJ Act after a delay of 02 years from the date of incident when he was a juvenile being below the age of 16 years.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C has not levelled any allegations of rape against the petitioner. The victim and the petitioner were in a consensual relationship and she had herself left home on 04.07.2020 with the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned order and submitted that the preliminary assessment was carried out strictly in accordance with law, despite the delay of almost 2 years occasioned by the Covid-19 pandemic, and only after due consideration of all the relevant statutory parameters, and that no perversity warranting interference is made out.

7. It was contended that pursuant to the directions issued by the Special Court under the POCSO Act, the Juvenile Justice Board conducted a detailed inquiry to determine whether the child in conflict with law possessed the requisite mental and physical capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the alleged offence. After undertaking such assessment, the Board, vide order dated 30.03.2022, returned a categoric finding that the petitioner had sufficient mental and physical maturity and that, considering the gravity of the allegations, there existed a necessity to try him as an adult.

8. The learned State counsel further submitted that the order dated 27.08.2020, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a child in conflict with law by the Special Court under the POCSO Act, was never assailed. In the said order, the date of birth of the child was re