Chhattisgarh High Court: Revision petition was filed by the applicant, who was a juvenile in conflict with the law, challenging the order dated 02-03-2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POSCO Act), Raigarh (‘the Appellate Court’), whereby the order of Juvenile Justice Board, Raigarh (‘the Board’) was affirmed. Parth Prateem Sahu, J., opined that it was clear from the report of the experts relied upon by the Board that, experts had not assessed the juvenile as mandated under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘the JJ Act’). Further there was also no discussion of circumstances in which the juvenile had allegedly committed the offence. The Court opined that in the absence of detailed assessment as mandated, the Court failed in its duty to comply with Section 15 of the JJ Act. Thus, the Court opined that the order of the Board under Section 15 of the JJ Act dated 05-01-2023 and the impugned order dated 02-03-2023 was not sustainable and they were set-aside.
Background
In the present case, applicant was a child who was in conflict with law and had committed the offence under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) which fell within the definition of heinous offence as defined under Section 2(33) of the JJ Act. Thus, the Board invoked the provisions under Section 15 of the JJ Act, and proceeded for preliminary assessment of applicant, who was above sixteen years and less than eighteen years.
Applicant submitted that the Board while invoking the provisions under Section 15 of the JJ Act 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. Applicant contended that the Appellate Court had not considered this fact that the report which was forwarded was incomplete as the panel constituted under Section 15 of the JJ Act had four members, but the enquiry conducted, and assessment and opinion was only by three members. He also pointed out that as per requirement, Board had to assign reasons if it concluded for referring the case to the Children Court for its trial, but no specific reasons were assigned by the Board.
Further, respondent submitted that applicant along with six other accused persons was involved in committing heinous offence of murder of murder of his own parents. Further, applicant was seventeen years and seven months of age. Therefore, the Board had rightly invoked the provisions under Section 15 of the JJ Act and had made preliminary assessment of mental and physical capacity of applicant and 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 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the report submitted by the experts to the Board did not deal with the aspects which were relevant under Section 15 of the JJ Act, like family history and relationship, school and education, work with which the juvenile was engaged at the time of commission of offence, peer relationships, whether he had been trauma and abuse (physical, sexual and emotional abuse experience), mental health disorders/developmental disability.
The Court opined that it was clear from the report of the experts relied upon by the Board that experts had not assessed the juvenile as mandated under Section 15 of the JJ Act. There was no detailed report of the assessment made, no document was enclosed along with the report of conducting assessment, procedure adopted, factors assessed, mode of assessment, evaluation of child based on the stages of assessment. Further there was also no discussion of circumstances in which the juvenile had allegedly committed the offence. Thus, the Court opined that in absence of detailed assessment as mandated, the Court failed in its duty to comply with Section 15 of the JJ Act.
Thus, the Court opined that the order of the Board under Section 15 of the JJ Act dated 05-01-2023 and the impugned appellate order dated 02-03-2023 was not sustainable and they were set-aside. The Court remitted the matter back to the Board for re-conducting preliminary assessment of juvenile in terms of Section 15 of JJ Act and to pass fresh order.
[XYZ v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 4280, Order dated 02-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Amit Buxy, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
