# Ayush Shukla Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 867
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3690 of 2025
- **Bench:** Siddharth
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ayush-shukla-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54828
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

requirement of Section 15 (1) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 only proviso which mandates that the
Board may take the assistance of experienced
psychologists or psycho-social workers or other
experts for conducting preliminary assessment
into heinous offences committed by child by the
Board.

Head Notes
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015-Section 15; The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
Sections
397/401-
Preliminary
assessments of juvenile under Section 15
of J.J. Act is a delicate and difficult task,
which requires expertise- It is being done
in arbitrary manner in absence of any
definite
parameters/
guidelines-
This
Court deems it appropriate to formulate
some guidelines for the Juvenile Justice
Board and Children's Court to guide them
in making preliminary assessment of
juveniles for the purpose of the trial
regarding commission of heinous offence
as per Section 15 of J.J. Act, 2015, till the
legislature
formulates
appropriate
guidelines - Guidelines issued by the court
to be followed by all the Juvenile Justice
Boards/ Children's courts while making
preliminary assessment of a child under
Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and
it should be reflected in their ordersImpugned order set aside - Revision
allowed. (E-15)

Held- The report of the psychologist of the
nature mentioned hereinabove does not fulfils
the requirements of Section 15 of J.J. Act. It
appears that only to make formal compliance of
getting report from psychologist, the report was
called. The report does not records any finding
as to the revisionist was subjected to what kind
of test; what was his Emotional Intelligence
Quotient (EQ) or his Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.).
The Board has although recorded the finding
that the revisionist has criminal antecedents of
implication in two cases, but that cannot be the
sole ground for declaring him adult for the
purpose of trial regarding the heinous offence
wherein he has been implicated.
(Para 30, 34 & 35)

Case Law Cited
Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu,
Criminal Appeal No.950 of 2022;Child in Conflict
with Law through his Mother Vs. State of
Karnatka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 798

List of Acts
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015; The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Section 15; The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Emotional
Intelligence Quotient (EQ); Intelligence Quotient
(I.Q.);
Preliminary
assessment;
Guidelines
issued.

Case Arising From
Order dated 30.11.2023 passed by Additional
and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Prayagraj, as well as order dated 04.12.2020
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj,
Sessions Trial No.43 of 2021 arising out of Case
Crime No. 0463 of 2019 under Sections 147,
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
148, 149, 323, 302 and 120-B I.P.C, Police
Station George Town, District Prayagraj.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashish Tripathi,
Aushim Luthra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

## Text

10 All. Ayush Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
867
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 867
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3690 of 2025

Ayush Shukla ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ashish Tripathi, Sri Aushim Luthra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the preliminary assessment of the
revisionist was not conducted as per the
requirement of Section 15 (1) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 only proviso which mandates that the
Board may take the assistance of experienced
psychologists or psycho-social workers or other
experts for conducting preliminary assessment
into heinous offences committed by child by the
Board.

Head Notes
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015-Section 15; The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
Sections
397/401-
Preliminary
assessments of juvenile under Section 15
of J.J. Act is a delicate and difficult task,
which requires expertise- It is being done
in arbitrary manner in absence of any
definite
parameters/
guidelines-
This
Court deems it appropriate to formulate
some guidelines for the Juvenile Justice
Board and Children's Court to guide them
in making preliminary assessment of
juveniles for the purpose of the trial
regarding commission of heinous offence
as per Section 15 of J.J. Act, 2015, till the
legislature
formulates
appropriate
guidelines - Guidelines issued by the court
to be followed by all the Juvenile Justice
Boards/ Children's courts while making
preliminary assessment of a child under
Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and
it should be reflected in their ordersImpugned order set aside - Revision
allowed. (E-15)

Held- The report of the psychologist of the
nature mentioned hereinabove does not fulfils
the requirements of Section 15 of J.J. Act. It
appears that only to make formal compliance of
getting report from psychologist, the report was
called. The report does not records any finding
as to the revisionist was subjected to what kind
of test; what was his Emotional Intelligence
Quotient (EQ) or his Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.).
The Board has although recorded the finding
that the revisionist has criminal antecedents of
implication in two cases, but that cannot be the
sole ground for declaring him adult for the
purpose of trial regarding the heinous offence
wherein he has been implicated.
(Para 30, 34 & 35)

Case Law Cited
Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu,
Criminal Appeal No.950 of 2022;Child in Conflict
with Law through his Mother Vs. State of
Karnatka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 798

List of Acts
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015; The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Section 15; The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Emotional
Intelligence Quotient (EQ); Intelligence Quotient
(I.Q.);
Preliminary
assessment;
Guidelines
issued.

Case Arising From
Order dated 30.11.2023 passed by Additional
and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Prayagraj, as well as order dated 04.12.2020
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj,
Sessions Trial No.43 of 2021 arising out of Case
Crime No. 0463 of 2019 under Sections 147,
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
148, 149, 323, 302 and 120-B I.P.C, Police
Station George Town, District Prayagraj.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashish Tripathi,
Aushim Luthra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)

1.
Heard
Sri
Abhishit
Jaiswal,
Advocate, holding brief of Sri Aushim
Luthra, learned counsel for the revisionist;
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the trial court record.

2. The present criminal revision
has been filed to set and aside the
judgement and order dated 30.11.2023
passed by Additional and Sessions
Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Prayagraj, as well as order dated
04.12.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board, Prayagraj, Sessions Trial No.43
of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.
0463 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 302 and 120-B I.P.C, Police
Station
George
Town,
District
Prayagraj.

3. The Juvenile Justice Board, after
determination of the age of the revisionist
as 17 years, 6 months and 27 days, directed
his preliminary assessment as per Section
15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Before
the Board, revisionist was asked seven
questions and it was held that the
revisionist was capable of understanding
the consequences of the act of murder and
other offences committed by him and he
was sufficiently mature as per the report of
D.P.O. He was found implicated in two
earlier offences also and hence he was held
liable to be tried as a adult by the Juvenile
Justice
Board
by
the
order
dated
04.12.2020.
On
appeal
before
the
Children's court, revisionist was held
accordingly and his appeal was dismissed
by the order 30.11.2023 by Children's
court. The Children's court has considered
the report of psychologist on record but
without considering its veracity.

4.
Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist has submitted that revisionist
was not named in the FIR. He has been
falsely implicated in this case by the
Investigating Officer during investigation.
Preliminary assessment of the revisionist
was not conducted as per the requirement
of Section 15 (1) of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 only proviso which mandates that the
Board
may
take
the
assistance
of
experienced psychologists or psycho-social
workers or other experts for conducting
preliminary
assessment
into
heinous
offences committed by child by the Board.

5. Despite service of notice on
opposite party no.2, no one has turned up to
oppose this criminal revision.

6. Learned AGA has opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the revisionist and submitted that Juvenile
Justice Board and Appellate court have
rightly made preliminary assessment of the
revisionist as per Section 15 of the act.

7.
After
hearing
the
rival
contentions, this Court finds that the
provisions of Section 15(1) of Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 are absolutely vague, although
preliminary assessment of the child in
conflict with law is provided in the
aforesaid
section
with
the
help
of
psychologists or psycho-social workers or
other experts, but process of determination
10 All. Ayush Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
869
has not been provided anywhere. Rule 10 A
of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Model Rules, 2016 also provides
that Board may take the assistance of
psychologists or psycho-social workers or
other experts who have experience of
working
with
children
in
difficult
circumstances. It further provides that a
panel of such experts may be made
available by the District Child Protection
Unit, whose assistance can be taken by the
Board or could be accessed independently.
Rule 11 (2) of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016,
provides that before passing an order of
preliminary assessment, the Board shall
obtain a social investigation report in Form
6 prepared by the Probation Officer or
Child Welfare Officer or social worker as
ordered and take the findings of the report
into account.

8. This Court finds that there is
nothing in the aforesaid provisions as to
how preliminary assessment of child should
be made by psychologists to help the
Board/Court.

9. This Court finds that the
Juvenile Justice Board has though taken
assistance of psychologist experts for
conducting preliminary assessment of the
revisionist for the purpose of his trial
regarding heinous offence, but it does not
seems reliable.

10. In the case of Barun Chandra
Thakur Vs. Master Bholu, Criminal
Appeal No.950 of 2022 the Apex Court
while dealing with Section 15 of the Act
for preliminary assessment of child in
conflict with law, observed as under:

 65. While considering a child
as an adult one needs to look at his/her
physical maturity, cognitive abilities, social
and emotional competencies. It must be
mentioned here that from a neurobiological
perspective, the development of cognitive,
behavioural attributes like the ability to
delay gratification, decision making, risk
taking,
impulsivity,
judgment,
etc.
continues until the early 20s. It is,
therefore, all the more important that such
assessment is made to distinguish such
attributes between a child and an adult.

 66.
Cognitive
maturation
is
highly dependent on hereditary factors.
Emotional development is less likely to
affect cognitive maturation. However, if
emotions are too intense and the child is
unable to regulate emotions effectively,
then intellectual insight/knowledge may
take a back seat.

 70.
A
child
with
average
intelligence/IQ will have the intellectual
knowledge of the consequences of his
actions. But whether or not he is able to
control himself or his actions will depend
on his level of emotional competence. For
example, risky driving may result in an
accident. But if emotional competence is
not high, the urge for thrill seeking may get
the better of his intellectual understanding.

 71. Children may be geared
towards more instant gratification and may
not be able to deeply understand the longterm consequences of their actions. They
are also more likely to be influenced by
emotion rather than reason. Research
shows that young people do know risks to
themselves.
Despite
this
knowledge,
adolescents engage in riskier behaviour
than adults (such as drug and alcohol use,
unsafe sexual activity, dangerous driving
and/or delinquent behaviour). While they
do consider risks cognitively (by weighing
870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
up the potential risks and rewards of a
particular act), their decisions/actions may
be more heavily influenced by social (e.g
peer influences) and/or emotional (e.g.
impulsive) tendencies. In addition, the lack
of experience coupled with the child's
limited ability to deeply understand the
long-term consequences of their actions
can lead to impulsive/reckless decision
making.

11. In Barun Chandra Thakur
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has
referred to the factum of Cognitive
maturation, observing intense emotion,
likely to affect the cognitive maturation, the
child with average IQ will have intellectual
knowledge of the consequences of his
action, but whether or nor, he will be able
to control himself or his actions will
depend
on
his
level
of
emotional
competence.

12.
Emotional
Intelligence
Quotient otherwise known as EQ., is the
ability to understand, use and manage
emotions in positive ways to relieve stress,
commensurate effectively, empathize with
others, overcome challenges and defuse
conflict.

13. While Intelligence Quotient
(IQ) is a measure of ability to solve
problems and think logically, Emotional
Intelligence Quotient (EQ), measures your
ability to understand and manage emotions.

14. Poor EQ is linked to crime and
other unethical behaviours. Unfortunately,
there is a direct connection between poor
emotional skills and the rising crime rate.
Children who have poor emotional skills
become social outcasts at a very young age.
They might be the class bully because of a
hot temper. They may have learned to
reacts with fists rather than with reason.
The path to crime starts early in life, while
there is no doubt that family and
environment are strong contributors, the
common threat is poor emotional and social
skills. Emotional Quotient as the product of
wisdom (w) and IQ, the relationship can be
expressed mathematically as EQ = W
IQ.

15. In Barun Chandra Thakur
(supra), while appreciating the world
acknowledgment of treating children in
conflict with law differently than adult in
conflict with law, the Apex Court has dealt
with the aspect of child psychology and
need to conduct a meticulous psychological
evaluation in following paragraphs:

 74. The world acknowledges that
children in conflict with law should be
treated differently than adults in conflict
with law. The reason is that the mind of the
child has not attained maturity and it is still
developing. Therefore, the child should be
tested on different parameters and should
be given an opportunity of being brought
into the main stream if, during his
juvenility, has acted in conflict with law. To
understand psychology of the child, huge
rounds of studies have been made not only
recently but from age old times and child
psychology is a subject which is being
studied world over and there are institutes
specifically dealing with the developments
and research on the said subject. The
enactments dealing with children are
enacted world over.

 75. It is to be noted that child
psychology is a specialised branch of
development psychology, its genesis is
based on the premise that children and
adults have a different thought process. The
individualised assessment of adolescent
10 All. Ayush Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
871
mental capacity and ability to understand
the consequences of the offence is one of
the most crucial determinants of the
preliminary
assessment
mandated
by
section 15 of the Act, 2015. The report of
the preliminary assessment decides the
germane question of transferring the case
of a child between 16 to 18 years of age to
the Children's Court. This evaluation of
mental capacity and ability to understand
the consequences of the child in conflict
with law can, in no way, be relegated to the
status of a perfunctory and a routine task.
The process of taking a decision on which
the fate of the child in conflict with law
precariously rests, should not be taken
without
conducting
a
meticulous
psychological evaluation.

16.
The
Apex
Court
thus,
expressed the need of formulating the
guidelines, to assist the J.J. Board making
preliminary assessment under section 15 of
the J.J. Act, by the authorities concerned, in
following lines:\
 87. Before concluding, we may
indicate that the task of preliminary
assessment under section 15 of the Act,
2015 is a delicate task with requirement of
expertise and has its own implications as
regards trial of the case. In this view of the
matter,
it
appears
expedient
that
appropriate and specific guidelines in this
regard are put in place. Without much
elaboration, we leave it open for the
Central Government and the National
Commission for Protection of Child Rights
and the State Commission for Protection of
Child Rights to consider issuing guidelines
or directions in this regard which may
assist and facilitate the Board in making
the preliminary assessment under section
15 of the Act, 2015.
17. It would be required to be
noted
that
expression
preliminary
assessment into heinous offences by the
Board used in section 15 of the J.J. Act,
2015, imposes upon the Board duty to pass
an order, to consider, whether there is a
need for a trial of the said child as an adult.
Under section 18(3) of the J.J. Act, the
Board shall transfer the trial of the case to
the Children's Court having jurisdiction to
try such offences. As has been observed in
paragraph no. 75 of the Barun Chandra
Thakur
(supra),
the
assessment
of
adolescent mental capacity and ability to
understand the consequences of the offence
of the child in conflict with law is one of
the most crucial determinants of the
preliminary
assessment
mandated
by
section 15 of the J.J. Act. This evaluation
of mental capacity and ability to
understand the consequences of the child
in conflict with law can, in no way, be
relegated to the status of a perfunctory and
a routine task. The process of taking a
decision on which the fate of the child in
conflict with law precariously rests, should
not
be taken
without
conducting a
meticulous psychological evaluation.

18. The conclusion arrived at in
Barun Chandra Thakur (supra) in context
with sections 15 and 19 read with section
18(3) of the J.J. Act, is as under:

 81. We are conscious of the fact
that the power to make the preliminary
assessment is vested in the Board and also
the Children's Court under sections 15 and
19 respectively. The Children's Court, on
its own, upon a matter being referred to
under section 18(3), would still examine
whether the child is to be tried as an adult
or not, and if it would come to the
conclusion that the child was not to be tried
as an adult then it would itself conduct an
inquiry as a Board and pass appropriate
orders under section 18. Thus, the power to
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
carry out the preliminary assessment rests
with the Board and the Children's Court.
This Court cannot delve upon the exercise
of preliminary assessment. This Court will
only examine as to whether the preliminary
assessment has been carried out as
required under law or not. Even the High
Court, exercising revisionary power under
section 102, would test the decision of the
Board or the Children's Court with respect
to its legality or propriety only. In the
present case, the High Court has, after
considering limited material on record,
arrived at a conclusion that the matter
required reconsideration and for which, it
has remanded the matter to the Board with
further
directions
to
take
additional
evidence and also to afford adequate
opportunity to the child before taking a
fresh decision.

19. In Barun Chandra Thakur
(supra)
case,
the
Apex
Court
has
specifically emphasised on the expression
may in proviso to section 15(1) of the
J.J. Act and has laid down that the
expression may would operate in
mandatory form and the Board would be
obliged to take assistance of experienced
psychologist or psycho social worker or
other expert. In the said case, it has been
also further clarified that in case, where the
Board consists of one member, who is a
practicing professional with a degree in
child psychologist or child psychiatric
chooses not to take such assistance, it
would record specific reasons thereof. In
Barun Chandra Thakur (supra) case,
paragraph nos. 76 and 79 clarify the said
aspect, which read as under:

 76. As already noticed, the Board
consists of three members, one is a Judicial
Officer First Class and two social workers,
one being a woman. The social worker
appointed as a member could be having a
degree in child psychology or psychiatry
but it is not necessary. As such, the
constitution
of
the
Board
may
not
necessarily be having an expert child
psychologist. It is for all the above reasons
that it has been provided not only in
sections 15 and 101(2) but also under the
Model Rules that assistance may be taken
from an expert psychologist. Having regard
to the framework of the Act, 2015 and the
Model
Rules
and
the
purpose
of
preliminary assessment in terms of Section
15
as
also
looking
to
the
varied
composition of the Board, we are of the
view that where the Board is not
comprising of a practicing professional
with a degree in child psychology or child
psychiatry, the expression may in the
proviso to section 15(1) would operate in
mandatory form and the Board would be
obliged to take assistance of experienced
psychologists or psycho-social workers or
other experts. However, in case the Board
comprises of at least one such member,
who has been a practicing professional
with a degree in child psychology or child
psychiatry, the Board may take such
assistance as may be considered proper by
it; and in case the Board chooses not to
take such assistance, it would be required
of the Board to state specific reasons
therefor.

 79. Therefore, looking to the
purpose of the Act, 2015 and its legislative
intent, particularly to ensure the protection
of best interest of the child, the expression
may in the proviso to Section 15(1)
thereof and the requirement of taking
assistance of experienced psychologists or
psycho-social workers or other experts
would operate as mandatory unless the
Board itself comprises of at least one
member who is a practicing professional
10 All. Ayush Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
873
with a degree in child psychology or child
psychiatry. Moreover, in case the Board, in
view of its own composition with at least
one
member,
who
is
a
practicing
professional with a degree in child
psychology or child psychiatry, chooses not
to take such assistance, it would record
specific reasons therefor.

20. The Apex Court also in the
case of Barun Chandra Thakur (Supra)
had expressed anxiety as to the kind of
analysis or assessment required under
Section 15 of the Act or the Model Rules,
2016. There is no guidelines or framework
to facilitate the Board in making proper
assessment when it has found the task of
preliminary assessment under section 15 of
the J.J. Act is a delicate task. Type of tests
required by assessment of child in conflict
in law by the psychologist have not been
defined
anywhere
in
the
Act.
The
guidelines of National Commission for
Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) in
April-2023 are also of no help in this
regard.

21. This Court has come across
number of orders of preliminary assessment
wherein psychologist report does not states
anything as to the nature of test conducted
for the purpose of preliminary assessment
of the child.

22. The Guidelines of NCPCR in
regard to role of J.J. Board and other
experts are described in the following
points:
 3.1 The Juvenile Justice Board
(JJB) is solely responsible for conducting
preliminary assessment as per section 14
(5)(f)(ii) and Section 15(1) of the Act.

 3.2 In case the Board does not
have at least one member who is a
practicing professional with a degree in
child psychology or child psychiatry, the
Board
shall
take
assistance
of
psychologists or psycho-social workers or
other experts who have experience of
working
with
children
in
difficult
circumstances. In such cases the Board
would record specific reason(s) for the
same.

 3.3 In cases where the Board
needs to consult experts for preliminary
assessment, the Board may take assistance
from experts associated with any District
Mental Health Programme or an expert
from a Mental Health Institution in the
District or outside the District. District
Magistrate (DM) will provide the list of
such experts and Institutions.

 3.4 Qualification of experts-The
psychologists and other experts who are
asked to assist JJB in conducting the
Preliminary
assessment,
shall
be
possessing qualification as required to be a
Member of the JJB under the JJ Act, 2015,
that is as follows-

 a practicing professional with
a degree in child psychology or psychiatry.

 No expert shall be included in
the process of conducting the preliminary
assessment, if he

 has any past record of
violation of human rights or child rights;
 has been convicted of an
offence involving moral turpitude, and such
conviction has not been reversed or has not
been granted full pardon in respect of such
offence;

 has been removed or dismissed
from service of the Central Government or
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a State Government or an undertaking or
corporation owned or controlled by the
Central
Government
or
a
State
Government;

 has ever indulged in child
abuse or employment of child labour or any
other violation of human rights or immoral
act.

23. In case of non-availability of
the expert in the District, services of Inpatient Departments, are directed to be
made available from other districts. The
said aspect has been expressed in guideline
3.5, which reads as under:

 3.5 Non-availability of experts
in
the
District-
In
case
trained
psychologists and experts are not available
within a given District, services of InPatient Departments may be availed from
other Districts. The State Child Protection
Society (SCPS) with help of the Health
Department shall issue a list of Institutes.

24. The guidelines also emphasize
on imparting regular training to the experts,
who have the required qualification to
assist the J.J. Board in conducting the
preliminary assessment. Such training are
made to be provided by National Institute
of
Public
Co-operation
of
Child
Development or the respective Child
Protection Society.
25. Other information, to be
considered
out
while
carrying
out
preliminary assessment, has been dealt with
in point-4.4 of the guidelines of the
NCPCR. The marginal note with point-4.4
in guideline very specifically lays down
that any confessional statement from SIR
must not be taken into consideration while
conducting preliminary assessment. Point4.4 is reproduced hereunder:
 4.4 Other information to be
considered while carrying out preliminary
assessment-
During
the
preliminary
assessment, the Board and experts shall
also analyze and take into consideration
the following-

 Social Investigation Report
(SIR)- The Board directs the Probation
Officer, or in case a Probation Officer is
not available to the Child Welfare Officer
or a social worker, to undertake a social
investigation into the case and submit a
social investigation report, within a period
of fifteen days from the date of first
production before the Board [section
8(3)(e)]

 Social Background ReportChild Welfare Police Officer of the police
station, or the special juvenile police unit
to which such child is brought, shall, as
soon as possible after apprehending the
child, inform the probation officer, or if no
probation officer is available, a Child
Welfare Officer, for preparation and
submission within two weeks to the Board,
a social investigation report containing
information regarding the antecedents and
family background of the child and other
material circumstances likely to be of
assistance to the Board for making the
inquiry [Section 13(1)(ii)]

 Individual Care Plan (ICP)-
The Board should also consider the
Individual Care Plan (ICP) for the child in
conflict with law concerned, prepared by a
Probation Officer or Child Welfare Officer
or a recognised voluntary organisation on
the basis of interaction with the child and
his family, where possible. Thereafter, at
the
time
of
final
orders
an
amended/updated ICP may be submitted to
the Board/Children's Court.
10 All. Ayush Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
875
 Witness report by CWPO-In
cases of heinous offences alleged to have
been committed by a child, who has
completed the age of sixteen years, the
Child Welfare Police Officer shall produce
the statement of witnesses recorded by him
and other documents prepared during the
course of investigation within a period of
one month from the date of first production
of the child before the Board, a copy of
which shall also be given to the child or
parent or guardian of the child [Rule
10(5)].

Interaction
with
parents/guardians; staff of school or other
institution attended by the child; peer
group; neighbours or any other person
deemed appropriate for giving insights
regarding the child within the scope of four
determinants as given at point 7 of the
guidelines.

26. This Court finds that Social
Investigation
Report
and
Social
Background Report-Child Welfare Police
Officer is seldom mentioned in the
preliminary assessment order passed by the
Board or Children's Court.

27. The explanation to section 15
of the J.J. Act clarifies that the preliminary
assessment is not a trial. This is an exercise
to assess the child's capacity to commit and
understand the consequences of the alleged
crime. The Board, thus, has to be very
careful
while
making
a
preliminary
assessment, and should not mechanically
rely on SIR or SBR without analysing the
juvenile case. Seriousness of the offence is
not the sole factor, which could control the
decision.

28. Coming to the facts of this
case, this Court finds that Dr. Rakesh
Kumar Paswn, Psychologist has given his
report
dated
25.9.2020
regarding
psychological assessment of child in
conflict with law, which is as follows:-

 "Mr. Ayush Shukla evaluated
twice on 22.9.2020 and 25.9.2020, detailed
history noted, mental status examination
done. History is consistent, coherent and
corroborated from case.

 He seems to be immature kind did
not know consequences of his act."

29. The Juvenile Justice Board
while passing the order dated 4.12.2020 has
not consider the same. However, the
appellate court has considered the same and
has recorded the finding that revisionist
was was not able to understand the
consequences of the act committed by him
and was immature.

30. This Court is of the view that
the report of the psychologist of the nature
mentioned hereinabove does not fulfils the
requirements of Section 15 of J.J. Act. It
appears
that
only
to
make
formal
compliance
of
getting
report
from
psychologist, the report was called. The
report does not records any finding as to
the revisionist was subjected to what kind
of test; what was his Emotional Intelligence
Quotient (EQ) or his Intelligence Quotient
(I.Q.). The Board has although recorded the
finding that the revisionist has criminal
antecedents of implication in two cases, but
that cannot be the sole ground for declaring
him adult for the purpose of trial regarding
the heinous offence wherein he has been
implicated.

31. This Court has come across
cases where the Juvenile Justice Board and
the Children's Court have not found any
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
psychologist
within
their
jurisdiction
fromwhere
they
can
get
report
of
psychologist. Hence they decided the issue
of
preliminary
assessment
on
mere
questioning of the child.

32. This Court finds that guidelines
of 3.5 of NCPCR considered hereinabove
in paragraph no.25 has addressed the issue
providing that in case trained psychologists
and experts are not available within a given
District, services of In-Patient Departments
may be availed from other Districts. The
State Child Protection Society (SCPS) with
help of the Health Department shall issue a
list of Institutes.

33. In Barun Chandra Thakur
(supra) the Apex Court has held that
appropriate and specific guidelines with
regard to preliminary assessment under
Section 15 of J.J. Act, 2015 are not there
and had left it open for the Central
Government and the National Commission
for Protection of Child Rights and the State
Commission for Protection of Child Rights
to consider issuing guidelines or directions
in this regard which may assist and
facilitate
the
Board
in
making
the
preliminary assessment under section 15 of
the Act, 2015, but as yet nothing has been
done.

34. As discussed above, the issue
of preliminary assessments of juvenile
under Section 15 of J.J. Act is a delicate
and difficult task, which requires expertise.
As of now, it is being done in arbitrary
manner
in
absence
of
any
definite
parameters/ guidelines for the same.
Therefore this Court deems it appropriate
to formulate some guidelines for the
Juvenile Justice Board and Children's Court
to guide them in making preliminary
assessment of juveniles for the purpose of
the trial regarding commission of heinous
offence as per Section 15 of J.J. Act, 2015,
till the legislature formulates appropriate
guidelines, as follows:-

GUIDELINES
COMPLIANCE
(i) The Board
will necessarily call the
report of psychologist
regarding the test of
intelligence of child
conducted regarding his
ability to understand the
consequences of his act
[like Binet Kamat Test
of Intelligence (B.K.T.);
Vineland
Social
Maturity Scale (VSMS);
Bhatiya Battery Test of
Intelligence or any other
test]. The psychologist
will indicate in his report
clearly what test was
performed for assessing
mental
ability
and
intelligence of the child
so
as
to
ascertain
whether he is required to
be tried as an adult, who
has committed heinous
offence. The E.Q. and
I.Q. of such a child shall
also be clearly indicated
in
the
report
of
psychologist;

(ii) Clear finding
shall
be
recorded
regarding
the
child's
physical
and
mental
capability
to
commit
heinous crime alleged
and
his
ability
to
understand
its
consequences;
10 All. Ayush Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
877

(iii) The Board
shall direct the Probation
Officer, or in case a
Probation Officer is not
available,
the
Child
Welfare Officer or a
social
worker,
to
undertake
social
investigation
into
the
case and submit a social
investigation
report,
within a period of fifteen
days from the date of
first production of child
before
the
Board
[section 8(3)(e)];

(iv)
Child
Welfare Police Officer
of the police station, or
the
special
juvenile
police unit to which such
child is brought, shall, as
soon as possible after
apprehending the child,
inform
the
probation
officer,
or
if
no
probation
officer
is
available,
a
Child
Welfare
Officer,
for
preparation
and
submission within two
weeks to the Board, a
social
investigation
report
containing
information
regarding
the
antecedents
and
family background of
the
child
and
other
material
circumstances
wherein
the
child
committed the alleged
offence likely to be of
assistance to the Board

for making the inquiry
[Section 13(1)(ii)];

(v) In cases of
heinous offences alleged
to have been committed
by a child, who has
completed the age of
sixteen years, the Child
Welfare Police Officer
shall
produce
the
statement of witnesses
recorded by him and
other
documents
prepared
during
the
course of investigation
within a period of one
month from the date of
first production of the
child before the Board, a
copy of which shall also
be given to the child or
parent or guardian of the
child [Rule 10(5);

(vi) The number
and
nature
of
the
previous implications of
the child with details of
names
of
complaint/complaints;

(vii) The number
and
nature
of
prior
period of probation of
child,
prior
commitments of child to
child correctional centers
and previous residential
and community - based
treatments;

(viii)
Whether
the alleged offense is
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
part
of
a
repetitive
pattern
of
similar
adjudicated
offenses
committed by child and
whether
implications
have been made by same
complainant;

(ix) Whether the
child
has
previously
absconded from the legal
custody of a juvenile
correctional center;

(x) The degree
of intellectual disability
or
mental illness
of
child, if any;

(xi) The child's
school
record
and
education;

35. These guidelines shall be
followed by all the Juvenile Justice
Boards/Children's courts while making
preliminary assessment of a child under
Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and
it should be reflected in their orders.

36.
For
the
reasons
given
hereinabove, the impugned orders passed
by the J.J. Board and the Children's Court
are not in accordance with law, hence, the
preliminary assessment of the present child
in conflict with law requires assessment
afresh by J.J. Board, as contemplated under
section 15(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015. The
assessment of child (revisionist) shall be
done on all the parameters/ guidelines
stated hereinabove. Since the Apex Court
in the case of Child in Conflict with Law
through his Mother Vs. State of Karnatka,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 798 has held that
period of three months provided under
Section 14 (3) of the Act for the purpose of
conducting psychological test of the child
is not mandatory.

37. The order dated 30.11.2023
passed by Additional and Sessions Judge/
Special Judge, POCSO Act, Prayagraj, as
well as order dated 04.12.2020 passed by
the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj, in
Sessions Trial No.43 of 2021 are quashed
and set aside.

38. In the result, the criminal
revision is allowed.

39. Let a copy of this order be
communicated
to
all
the
J.J.
Boards/Children's courts in the State for
necessary
compliance
by
Registrar
(Compliance), within two weeks.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 878
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5898 of 2024

Gaurav Gupta ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Atul Kumar Shahi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, Puja
Bhargava Singh

Issue for Consideration