# Juvenile 'X' Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 1021
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4833 of 2024
- **Bench:** Siddharth
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/juvenile-x-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53590
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether a child above sixteen years of
age, alleged to have committed a heinous
offence, can be directed to face trial as an
adult under Section 15 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015, in disregard of a psychologist's
report
indicating
mild
intellectual
disability and poor social functioning; and
whether such opinion is binding upon the
Juvenile Justice Board.

Headnotes
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 - ss.15, 18(3), 19 -
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Model Rules, 2016 - r.10A -
Preliminary
assessment
-
Heinous
offence - Juvenile aged between 16-18
years - Expert assessment - Board's
discretion - Requirement of independent
satisfaction - Procedural safeguard -
Social media influence- Reformative
intent - Trial as adult - Scope of judicial
review.

Held:

Preliminary assessment under s.15 of the 2015
Act-crucial judicial function determining whether
a child above sixteen years should be tried as an
adult for a heinous offence-Such assessment
must be based upon an evaluation of the-(i)
mental and physical capacity to commit the
offence-(ii)
ability
to
understand
its
consequences-(iii)
circumstances
of
its
commission. [Paras 13-15]

Juvenile Justice Board may seek assistance from
psychologists or experts under s.15(1) r/w r.10A
of the 2016 Rules-expert's opinion is advisory
and not binding-the Board's disagreement
with such opinion must be reasoned and based
on an independent evaluation of evidence.
[Paras 14, 18, 21-22]

Words "may take assistance" in s.15(1) must be
construed as mandatory in practice- assessment
determines whether the child is to be subjected
to an adult trial- omission to meaningfully
consider expert opinion vitiates the process -
contrary to the legislative safeguards protecting
children in conflict with law. [Paras 17, 20]

Act of 2015-reformative and child-centricenvisages rehabilitation-not retribution- Board
cannot, on the basis of the seriousness of the
offence alone- treat every adolescent as an
adult criminal. [Paras 31-33]

Revision allowed - Orders treating juvenile as
adult set aside - Matter remanded to the
Juvenile Justice Board for trial as a juvenile
under the 2015 Act (E-14)

Case Law Cited

Minor X v. State of U.P. and Another,
Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2022 (All HC)
- distinguished; Mumtaz Ahmed Nasir
Khan v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (4)
Bom CR (Cri) 261 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection
of
Children) Act, 2015; Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016;
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act,

## Text

7 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1021

24. The revision lacks merits and the
same is dismissed.

25. Interim order dated 03.12.2024
stands discharged.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 1021
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4833 of 2024

Juvenile 'X' ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Sri Govind
Prasad Pal, Sri Pradeep Kumar Pal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether a child above sixteen years of
age, alleged to have committed a heinous
offence, can be directed to face trial as an
adult under Section 15 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015, in disregard of a psychologist's
report
indicating
mild
intellectual
disability and poor social functioning; and
whether such opinion is binding upon the
Juvenile Justice Board.

Headnotes
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 - ss.15, 18(3), 19 -
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Model Rules, 2016 - r.10A -
Preliminary
assessment
-
Heinous
offence - Juvenile aged between 16-18
years - Expert assessment - Board's
discretion - Requirement of independent
satisfaction - Procedural safeguard -
Social media influence- Reformative
intent - Trial as adult - Scope of judicial
review.

Held:

Preliminary assessment under s.15 of the 2015
Act-crucial judicial function determining whether
a child above sixteen years should be tried as an
adult for a heinous offence-Such assessment
must be based upon an evaluation of the-(i)
mental and physical capacity to commit the
offence-(ii)
ability
to
understand
its
consequences-(iii)
circumstances
of
its
commission. [Paras 13-15]

Juvenile Justice Board may seek assistance from
psychologists or experts under s.15(1) r/w r.10A
of the 2016 Rules-expert's opinion is advisory
and not binding-the Board's disagreement
with such opinion must be reasoned and based
on an independent evaluation of evidence.
[Paras 14, 18, 21-22]

Words "may take assistance" in s.15(1) must be
construed as mandatory in practice- assessment
determines whether the child is to be subjected
to an adult trial- omission to meaningfully
consider expert opinion vitiates the process -
contrary to the legislative safeguards protecting
children in conflict with law. [Paras 17, 20]

Act of 2015-reformative and child-centricenvisages rehabilitation-not retribution- Board
cannot, on the basis of the seriousness of the
offence alone- treat every adolescent as an
adult criminal. [Paras 31-33]

Revision allowed - Orders treating juvenile as
adult set aside - Matter remanded to the
Juvenile Justice Board for trial as a juvenile
under the 2015 Act (E-14)

Case Law Cited

Minor X v. State of U.P. and Another,
Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2022 (All HC)
- distinguished; Mumtaz Ahmed Nasir
Khan v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (4)
Bom CR (Cri) 261 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection
of
Children) Act, 2015; Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016;
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act,
2005.

List of Keywords
Juvenile; Preliminary assessment; Heinous
offence; Section 15 JJ Act; Psychologist's
report; Mental capacity; Expert opinion;
Discretion
of
Board;
Procedural
safeguards; Trial as adult; Reformative
approach;
Intellectual
deficit;
Judicial
reasoning; Rehabilitation; Child rights;
Social
media
influence;
Welfare
jurisprudence.

Case Arising From
Impugned judgment / order dated 12.12.2023
passed
by
the
Juvenile
Justice
Board,
Kaushambi in Case Crime No. 412 of 2022
(State vs. Child in conflict with law ABCJU) and
the
impugned
judgment
/
order
dated
13.08.2024 passed by the learned POCSO Court
/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kaushambi in
Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2024 (Raju Pal @
Ram Milan vs. State of U.P & others) .

Appearance for Parties

For the Revisionist : Shri Ajai Kumar
Srivastava, Shri Govind Prasad Pal.
For the State : Ms. Manju Thakur, A.G.A.-I

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)

1.
Heard
learned
counsel
for
revisionist; Ms. Manju Thakur, learned
A.G.A-I, for State and perused the material
on record.

2. No one has turned up on behalf of
opposite party no. 2.

3. The present criminal revision has
been filed challenging the impugned
judgment / order dated 12.12.2023 passed
by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi
in Case Crime No. 412 of 2022 (State vs.
Child in conflict with law ABCJU) and the
impugned
judgment
/
order
dated
13.08.2024 passed by the learned POCSO
Court / Special Judge (POCSO Act),
Kaushambi in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of
2024 (Raju Pal @ Ram Milan vs. State of
U.P & others) on the ground that the
impugned orders have wrongly held the
revisionist to the tried as adult and his
assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board as
well as Special Court is not in accordance
with law.

4. Counsel for the revisionist submits
that in both, the assessment and medical
reports, it was assessed and held by the
experts that psychological assessment of
juvenile are suggestive of mild deficit in
intellectual
functioning.
Also,
some
difficulty in social domain, as assessed by
the CBCL, was found borderline to mild in
clinical range, even then vide impugned
judgment / order dated 12-12-2023, the
Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi by
ignoring
the
Preliminary
Assessment
Report
dated
03-11-2023
and
Psychological Assessment Report dated 0911-2023 sent the matter before the POCSO
Court for trial and the POCSO Court vide
impugned judgment / order dated 13-082024 confirmed the stand taken by the
Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi, as such
both the impugned judgments / orders
passed by both the Courts below are wholly
unsustainable in the eyes of law and liable
to be set aside by this Court.

5. He further submits that the
impugned judgment / order dated 12-122023 of the Juvenile Justice Board,
Kaushambi
holds
that
the
clinical
psychologist report states that there appears
mild deficit in mental status, even then the
7 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1023
Board had relied upon the allegations made
in the first information report as well as
statement of victim recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C., by ignoring the clinical
psychologist report and held that the
Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi is not
bound by the reports submitted by the
experts and has disagreed with the reports.
It is submitted that denying the experts
report will frustrate the provisions of
Section 15 (1) of The Juvenile Justice Act,
2015, which may not be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the State has
submitted that although the preliminary
assessment report under Section 15(1) and
the report of psychologist are in favour of
the juvenile but the board has recorded
clear findings that since the revisionist
indulged in physical relationship with the
victim, aged about 14 years, for one year
and when she became pregnant for five
months, he administered her medicine
which resulted in abortion of her pregnancy
and therefore the revisionist was required
to be tried as an adult. He was well aware
of the consequences of his act and had
criminal inclination of mind.

7. The courts have found that the
revisionist was able to understand the
consequence of crime committed by him
and therefore the board is not bound to
accept the report of the psychologist and
has held that the revisionist is required to
be tried as an adult.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has placed reliance upon a judgment of this
court passed in Criminal Revision No. 656
of 2022, Minor 'X' vs. State of U.P. and
Another. In this revision the dispute was
that even on the request of Juvenile to send
him
for
the
examination
by
the
psychologist / psychiatrist or other expert,
he was not sent for examination and the
Juvenile Justice Board without taking
assistance of psychologist or expert held
that the revisionist is required to be tried as
an adult.

9. This court held in the aforesaid
judgment that the section 15 of the J.J. Act
although provides that the board may take
assistance and psychologist or psychiatrist
or expert but the word 'may' indicates that
it is mandatory and not optional for the
Juvenile Justice Board. Hence, the matter
was remanded to the board for preliminary
assessment as per Section 15(1) of the J.J.
Act. Clearly the case law has no application
to the present case. It has been cited out of
context
by
the
learned
counsel
for
revisionist.

10. The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short
`the Act') was brought in the system of
criminal
trial
wherein
juvenile
aged
between 16-18 years can be deemed to be
an adult in case of commission of heinous
offences and therefore can be tried before a
criminal court under Section 6 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `Cr P
C') in accordance with the ordinary
procedure of law. Section 15 of the Act
provides the mechanism for determination
of the mental and physical capacity of a
juvenile
of
such
age
regarding
the
commission of the offences and the
consequences thereof in order to presume
such juvenile `as an adult' by employing
legal fiction. The juvenile in fact need not
to be an adult. But in law such juvenile will
be considered as an adult. Since such an
inquiry has immense ramification qua a
juvenile aged between 16-18 years, it is of
paramount importance that the said inquiry
is conducted following the provisions of
law in its letters and spirits. But in fact
1024 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
more often than not, it is found that such
legal mandate in conducting such an
inquiry is breached in impunity.

11. According to Section 14 of the
Act, when a `child in conflict with law'
within the meaning of Section 2 (13) of the
Act is produced before the Juvenile Justice
Board (in Short `the Board') constituted
under Section 4 of the Act, the Board is
obligated to hold an inquiry as per Chapter
XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short `Cr PC') in case of petty
offence defined under Section 2(45) of the
Act (vide Section 14 (5)(d)); or an inquiry
as per Chapter XX of Cr P C in case of
serious offence defined under Section 2(54)
of the Act (vide Section 14(5)(e)), or an
inquiry as per Chapter XX of Cr P C in
case of heinous offence defined under
Section 2(33) of the Act for a child below
the age of sixteen years as on the date of
commission of the offence (vide Section
14(5)(f)(i)). At the conclusion of such
inquiry the Board may pass either an order
of exoneration under Section 17 or an order
of conviction under Section 18 of the Act.
In case an Order is passed under Section 18
of the Act, the Board is required to follow
the provisions mentioned under Section
18(1) and / or 18(2) of the Act.

12. However, in case `a child in
conflict with law' above the age of sixteen
years as on the date of commission of the
offence being an accused of a `heinous
offence', a preliminary assessment inquiry
has to be conducted in terms of Section 15
of the Act (vide Section 14(3)/ 14(5)(f)(ii)).

13. The purpose of such preliminary
assessment test under Section 15 of the Act
is to ascertain as to whether `the child in
conflict with law' is required to be tried as
an adult by a Children's Court (vide Section
18(3)) or by the Board. In the aforesaid
eventuality, once `a child in conflict with
law' is produced before the Board, it is
therefore, imperative for the Board to
conduct a preliminary assessment test
under Section 15 of the Act with regard to:

a. The mental and;

b. Physical capacity to commit a
heinous offence within the meaning of
Section 2(33) of the Act and;

c. Ability to understand the
consequences of the offence and;

d. The circumstances in which he
allegedly committed the offence.

14. In coming to such a conclusion the
board
may
take
the
assessment
of
experienced psychologist or psycho-social
workers or other experts.

15. In this regard, it may be mentioned
that the Board must consist of a Magistrate
with at-least 3 years of experience and two
social workers (vide Section 4(2)).

16. Rule 10A of the said Act (Care and
Protection of children) Model Rules, 2016
(in short `Central Rules') prescribes the
procedure for preliminary assessment into
heinous offences by the Board. It provides
that the Board shall in the first instance
determine whether the child is of 16 years
of age or above. According to sub-Rule (2)
of the Central Rules, for the purpose of
conducting a preliminary assessment in
case of heinous offences the Board may
take assistance of psychologist or psychosocial workers or other experts who have
experience of working with the children in
different circumstances. According to subrule (3) of the Central Rules, while making
7 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1025
the preliminary assessment, the child shall
be presumed to be innocent. According to
sub-rule (4) of the Central Rules, where the
board, upon a preliminary assessment
passes an order that there is a need for trial
of the said child as an adult, `it shall assign
reasons for the same'.

17. In order to appreciate the aforesaid
provisions Section 3 of the said Act may be
taken
into
consideration.
Section
3
enumerates `General Principles to be
followed in administration of the said Act'.
According to Clause (i) of Section 3, a
child shall be presumed to be innocent of
any mala-fide or criminal intent. According
to clause (ix) of section 3, no waiver of any
right of the child is permissible or valid.
According to Clause (xvi), basic procedural
safeguards of fairness shall be adhered to,
including the right of a fair hearing, rule
against bias, etc.

18. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is
therefore evident that the preliminary
assessment test is a compulsory step which
has to be necessarily followed by a Board
once a child is produced before it in the
eventualities as mentioned hereinabove.
The procedure enumerated in Section 15
read with Rule 10A of Central Rules make
it imperative for the Board to scrupulously
and religiously follow the procedure in
order to come to an independent decision,
of course with aid of expert opinion. The
crux is that the formulation of the opinion
must, therefore be by the Board and none
else. The Board cannot abdicate its
essential judicial function. It is trite law
that no decision making authority can
abdicate its decision making power to
another authority.

19. An order under Section 15 of the
Act not only gives a different legal
character to a juvenile aged between 16 to
18 years thereby presuming the said
juvenile to be an adult in the contemplation
of law, but also takes away the application
of the beneficial provisions enumerated
under Section 18(1)/(2) of the Act. It
eventually determines the forum for trial,
procedure for trial and the punishment that
can ultimately be imposed in case the said
juvenile is found to be guilty. Since the
provision under Section 15 of the Act deals
with a legal fiction (vide Section 18(3)), it
has to be construed strictly. It is well settled
that a deeming provision deserves strict
construction.

20. Once an order is passed under
Section 19 (3) of the Act, the case of the
said child is transferred to the Children's
Court within the meaning of Section 2(20)
of the Act. In case the Children's Court is a
designated court under Section 25 of the
Commissions for Protection of Child
Rights Act, 2005 (in short `the Child Rights
Act') vis a vis under Section 28 of the
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (in short `POSCO'), it
will follow the procedure for trial of a
sessions case under Chapter XVIII of Cr
PC (vide Section 19 (2) read with Section
33 of POSCO vis a vis Section 25 of the
Child Rights Act and Rule 12(8) of the
Central Rules). The Children's Court may
draw presumptions of guilt and culpable
mental state under Sections 29 and 30 of
POSCO respectively, in appropriate cases.
It may pass any order of sentence except
death sentence and life imprisonment
without remission (vide Section 21) unlike
the Board under Section 18 of the Act. The
protection against disqualification under
Section 24 of the Act will also not operate
qua a child in conflict with law who was
tried as an adult by the Children's Court.

21. Section 15 of the Act therefore,
envisages a crucial judicial examination
1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which determines the status of the child qua
a criminal trial. Though Section 15 of the
Act is a component of an enquiry and not a
trial, nevertheless, such inquiry requires
application of judicial mind and the same is
not a ministerial work. In this regard it may
be mentioned that in the Act, the provisions
for trail as envisaged under Cr PC has been
generally conceptualized as inquiry. By
virtue of sub-rule (3) of Rule 10A of
Central Rule, during the decision making
process the Board is obliged to presume the
child to be an innocent.

22. The decision passed by the Board
must necessarily be supported by reasons
inasmuch as assigning reason is the best
way out to demonstrate the application of
mind. In case the reasoning fails, as a
consequence thereof, the conclusion fails
equally. An order under Section 15 of the
said Act has therefore need to demonstrate
satisfaction regarding the mental and/or
physical capacity of the child to commit a
heinous offence; the ability of the child to
understand
the
consequences
of
the
offences, and the circumstances in which
the alleged offence had occurred.

23. In the present case, the petitioner,
being more than 16 years of age as on the
date of commission of alleged offence, the
matter had to be considered in view of
provisions of Section 15 of Act for the
purpose of making preliminary assessment,
as to whether the child in conflict with law
had to be tried as an adult or not. The three
parameters as provided under Section 15 of
the Act are required to be followed strictly.
The Act of 2015 has been enacted by the
Parliament under the powers available
under Article 253 of the Constitution of
India, the age for trying the child/juvenile
as an adult has been reduced from 18 to 16
years.

24. The case, in hand, falls within the
category of heinous offence and the
petitioner, being more than 16 years of age
on the date of commission of offence, is
required to be dealt with as per provisions
of Section 15 of the Act for the purpose of
making preliminary assessment. As per
arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Board has conducted the
preliminary assessment and got the report
from Psychologist as per provisions of the
Act and Rules framed thereunder but court
has not agreed to its findings. A conjoint
reading
of
both
Rules
10,
10A
inconsonance with Section 14, 15 and 18(3)
would reveal that the path to be tread upon
by the Board, post the production of the
Juvenile has been clearly spelt-out where
heinous offence has been alleged to be
committed by a child, who has completed
16 years of age. Rule 10(5) clearly reflects
that the Child Welfare Police Officer is to
produce the statements of witnesses and
other documents prepared during the course
of investigation within a period of one
month from the date of first production of a
child before the Board. It is also required
that a copy thereof is to be given to the
child or parent or guardian of the child. The
legislature in its wisdom has prescribed the
period of one month to produce the
statements of the witnesses and other
documents with a copy to the child,
subsequent to which, the Preliminary
Assessment in case of heinous offences
under Section 15 of the Act has to be
completed. Meaning thereby, the copy of
list of witnesses and other documents along
with copy of final report is to be supplied to
the child or his parents or to the guardian
before making the Preliminary Assessment
as per provisions of Section 15 of the Act.
It is also stipulated in Section 15 read with
Rules 10 and 10-A along with other
provisions of the Act that three basic
7 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1027
parameters are necessary to be followed in
case of a heinous offence before passing
the
order
under
Section
18(3)
for
determining the need for trial of a child as
an adult. The Board had to follow three
parameters
for
making
Preliminary
Assessment as to whether there is a need
for the trial of said child as an adult or not.
It is to be seen as to how the Board as well
as the Appellate Court has appreciated the
circumstances of the commission of alleged
offence, without the list of witnesses,
documents relevant to the matter as well as
the final report, which in any case the
investigating authority is to file before the
Board in less than two months of the
production of the child before it.

25. In the present case, it appears that
no list of witnesses and documents were
supplied to the petitioner or his parents or
guardian, which itself shows that the Board
as well as the Appellate Court have decided
the case without any application of mind
and contrary to the provisions of the Act
and the Rules framed thereunder.

26. There is no dispute that the offence
of commission of which the accused
appellant was charged with, fall within the
category of 'heinous offences' as defined
under Section 2(33) of the JJ Act. Section
15(1) provides that in case where a heinous
offence/s
are
alleged
to
have
been
committed by a child who has completed or
is above the age of sixteen years, the Board
shall conduct a preliminary assessment
with regard to his mental and physical
capacity to commit such offence, ability to
understand the consequences of the offence
and the circumstances in which he
committed the offence. The Board, after
conducting such assessment, may pass an
order in accordance with the provisions of
sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the JJ Act.
Section 15(2) provides that where the
Board
is
satisfied
on
preliminary
assessment that the matter should be
disposed of by the Board, then the Board
shall follow the procedure, as far as may
be, for trial of summons case under CrPC.
Under first proviso to this sub-section, the
order passed by the Board is appealable
under Section 101(2) of the JJ Act.

27. In the present case, there is no
dispute that the provisions laid down under
Sections 15 to 19 have been complied by
the board and the Children's Court. The
only issue involved in the revision is
whether the report of the psychologist
which was in favour of revisionist, could
have been ignored by the Board and only
on the ground that the revisionist has
committed heinous offence as defined
under Section 2(33) of J.J. Act he could
have been held to be adult and required to
be tried as an adult by the Children's Court.

28. The report of clinical psychologist
is reproduced hereinbelow :-

CHIEF COMPLAINTS:

- Poor academic performance

- Poor social interaction

- Difficulty in reading and writing

Brief History: Patient was born
full term normal delivery.

Birth cry?. No h/s/o jaundice,
HGE, prenatal postnatal complications,
seizure or head trauma. Speech was
delayed. All the immunizations were
provided. As per informant, there have
been complaints from school regarding his
academic difficulty. His parents also
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
observed that he is facing difficulty in
academic performance includes calculation
and having poor writing and reading skills.
As per informant he has very limited social
interaction with his peer groups as well as
with his neighbours. There is no h/s/o past
psychiatric
illness
or
prolonged
hospitalization.

Information:
Adequate
and
Reliable

Behavioral Observation

Patient was well-groomed. He
was able to maintain eye-contact. Initially
it was difficult to establish rapport with
patient
however
working
rapport
established in second session of clinical
interviewing. Attention could be aroused
with
little
difficulty
and
sustained
throughout the session. He was cooperative and listening carefully to the test
instructions. His speech was relevant and
coherent, rate tone and volume was
decreased. He was cooperative throughout
the session. No signs of hyperactivity or
any perceptual abnormality could be
observed. Test was completed in two
sessions with short breaks when required.

TEST ADMINISTERED:

1.
Bender
Gestalt
Test
(BGT/BGVMT) - To assess perceptual and
visual motor functioning involving sensory
reception, interpretation and organization.

2. Child Behavior Check List
(CBCL)

3. Senguine Form Board test
(SFBT) 4. Binet Kamat Test

(BKT) TEST FINDINGS:

1. On Bender Gestalt Test patient
obtained a raw score of 8 indicative of mild
dysfunction
in
visuo-motor
and
organizational skills.

2. The CBCL was completed by
the mother of the child to obtain the
parental
perception
of
the
child's
competencies and problems. On the CBCL,
the Internalizing Scale attempts to tap
problems which are within the self. It
includes
the
domains
of
Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed
and
Somatic
Complaints.
On
the
internalizing
scale,
constituting
the
domains scores of Anxious / Depressed (T
Score=51, Percentile=52), Withdrawn /
Depressed (T Score =54, Percentile= 62)
and Somatic complaints (T Score =57,
Percentile= 75), the child obtained score of
5, with a corresponding T-score of 52.
These scores fall in the Normal range.

The Externalizing Scale of the
CBCL attempts to tap problems that mainly
involve conflicts with other people and with
their expectations for the child. It includes
the domains of Rule Breaking Behavior and
Aggressive Behavior. On the Externalizing
Scale, constituting the domain scores of
Rule Breaking Behavior (T Score = 58,
Percentile= 53), and Aggressive Behavior
(T Score =55, Percentile= 65), the child
obtained a score of 8, with a corresponding
T-score of 54. These scores fall in the
Normal range.The Total Behavior Problem
Score, constituting the internalizing scale
scores, externalizing scale scores and
scores on the domains of social problems
(T Score= 67, Percentile= 94), thought
problems (T Score=50, Percentile=<50)
and attention problems (T Score=68,
Percentile= 95), was found to be 34, with a
corresponding T score of 57, which is
indicative of the Normal Range. Scores in
7 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1029
the social problems sub domains are in the
Borderline to mild clinical range.

3. On SFBT, patient has the form
concept and was able to complete the test
within given time limit. The shortest time he
has taken on SFBT Was 27.64 seconds,
suggestive of 6 years of mental age. The
total time was 97.23 seconds, which also
suggestive of 6 years of mental age. Low
performance on SFBT was seems to be
affected by poor and limited environmental
exposure.

4. On BKT IQ (Intelligence
quotient), child's 1Q was 66 suggestive of
mild deficit in Intellectual functioning.

IMPRESSION

One the basis of detailed clinical
observations,
history,
mental
status
examination,
finding
of
psychological
assessments are suggestive mild deficit in
Intellectual
functioning.
Also
some
difficulty in social domains as assessed by
the CBCL was found borderline to mild
clinical range.

29. The categories of BKT IQ as per
Indian Journal of Mental Health 2020 are
as follows :-

Normally used
categories

BKT IQ

Very superior

Above 137

Superior

125 - 136

High / Above average

113 - 124

Average

87 - 112

Low / Below average
75 - 86

Borderline

64 - 74

Mild

38 - 63

Intellectual
Disability
Moderate/
Mental
Retardation

Moderate
19 - 37

Severe

Below 19

(BKT does
not

Profound

differentiate
between
severe and
profound

30. This court finds that the report of
psychologist
was
in
favour
of
the
revisionist. In the report it was clearly
mentioned that the mental age of revisionist
was six years only when he was above 16
years of age. From the BKT IQ categories
noted above the revisionist with score of 62
comes in borderline category which is even
below the category of low / below average.
It is also apparent from record that before
the children's court an application was
made on behalf of revisionist for his remedical examination with regard to age
which was rejected. It is clear from the
facts of the case that the revisionist
indulged in physical relationship with the
victim, aged about 14 years, for one year
and when she became pregnant, he called
the victim to his house, where the
revisionist, Chedilal and Ram Prasad, after
threatening the victim gave her some
medicine which resulted in abortion of her
pregnancy. Therefore, the administration of
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
medicine was not done on sole discretion of
revisionist rather two other persons were
involved by revisionist. He was not capable
nor he took decision to administered the
victim
medicine
alone.
Keeping
his
conduct in view the orders of the courts
below are not justified.

31. This court finds that the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of Mumtaz
Ahmed Nasir Khan and Others vs. State
of Maharashtra and Others, 2019(4)
Bom CR (Cri) 261 (Bombay) has
addressed the root cause of such offences
being committed by juveniles as follows :-

"33. As Section 15 permits the
Board
may,
during
the
preliminary
assessment,
take
the
assistance
of
experienced psychologists or psychosocial
workers or other experts. First, the
preliminary assessment is "not a trial."
Second, it is, instead, an inquiry to assess
the child's capacity to commit the alleged
offence
and
to
understand
its
consequences. On inquiry, the Board must
satisfy itself in its preliminary assessment
about the juvenile's mental and physical
capacity, his ability to understand the
consequences of the offence, and so on.
Then, if the Board is "satisfied on
preliminary assessment that the matter
should be disposed of", it will follow "the
procedure, as far as may be, for trial in
summons case under Cr PC." The Board's
order is appealable under sub-section (2)
of Section 101.

38. A universally accepted ideal
is that children are dependent and deficient
in the mental and physical capacities, and
are in need of guidance. Perhaps, initially,
a multi-visual medium like TV; later, a
globe devouring internet (appropriately,
ominously worded as "world wide web"),
and finally-and fatally-the post-truth social
media have let the children, especially the
adolescents, leapfrog into the adult world.
Mostly
it
is
a
crash-landing,
with
disastrous consequences. So the childhood
innocence is the casualty. These devices
may have made a child bypass his or her
childhood, sadly. Then, naturally, the
theory of reduced culpability for juveniles
relative to adults has taken a statutory
dent. The good-old-days icon of a truant
child seems to get replaced by the modernday mascot of a violent predator.

.............

...............

87. So we need to revisit Section
15
of
the
Act
to
determine
what
circumstances compel a juvenile to face the
trial as if he were an adult. (1) It must be a
heinous offence; here it is. (2) The child
must have completed sixteen years; here he
has. (3) The Board must have conducted a
preliminary assessment; here it has. (4)
That preliminary assessment concerns four
aspects: (a) the child's mental and (b)
physical capacity to commit such offence;
(c)
his
ability
to
understand
the
consequences of the offence; (d) and the
circumstances in which he allegedly
committed the offence. The preliminary
assessment, indeed, has been on all these
aspects. Agreed. But has the Board found
the child fitting into the scheme on all four
counts?

88. I reckon of the four aspectsphysical
capacity,
mental
ability,
understanding, and the circumstances-none
is dispensable. They all must be present, for
they are not in the alternative. Let us
remind ourselves, just because the statute
permits a child of 16 years and beyond can
7 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1031
stand trial in a heinous offence as an adult,
it does not mean that the statute intends
that all those children should be subject to
adult punishment. It is not a default choice;
a conscious, calibrated one. And for that,
all the statutory criteria must be fulfilled.

..................

.................

92. The explanation to Section 15
of the Act clarifies that the preliminary
assessment is not a trial; it is an exercise to
assess the child's capacity to commit and
understand the consequences of the alleged
offence.

93. In this context, if the Board's
criteria of evaluation, as affirmed by the
Appellate Court, are followed, then every
case becomes an open and shut case. If the
child is 16 or above and is capable of
committing the offence and understanding
the consequences, that will suffice. I am
afraid it ought to be more than that. The
whole endeavor of the JJ Act is to save the
child in conflict with the law from the path
of self-destruction and being a menace to
the
society.
It
is
reformative,
not
retributive. Section 15, I believe, must be
read and understood keeping in view the
objective that permeates the whole Act and
the spirit it is imbued with.

94. That to contain crime, the
State must be strict and the punishment
must be harsh is an intuitive assertion; but
sometimes the solution to the crime are
counterintuitive. Steven D. Levitt and
Stephen J. Dubner, in their popular book
Freakonomics[16] , have hypothesized that
the juvenile crime in a few of states of the
US has come down thanks to Roe v. Wade,
a judgment of the American Supreme Court
that legalized abortion. Critics apart, there
can be ideas that are worth exploring. It is
equally worthwhile, first, to explore for
ideas,
instead
getting
stuck
in
a
predictable, plebian approach to societal
problems.

98. Merely on the premise that
the offence is heinous and that it lends to
the societal volatility of indignation, we are
bracing for juvenile recidivism. Retributive
approach vis-a-vis juveniles needs to be
shunned unless there are exceptional
circumstances,
involving
gross
moral
turpitude and irredeemable proclivity for
the crime. Condemned, any juvenile is
going to be a mere numeral in prison for a
lifetime; reformed, he may redeem himself
and may become a value addition to the
Society. Let no child be condemned unless
his fate is foreordained by his own
destructive conduct. For this, a single
incident not revealing wickedness, human
depravity, mental perversity, or moral
degeneration may not be enough. Just
deserts are more than mere retribution.

99. The Society, or restrictively
the aggrieved person, views any problem ex
post; it wants a wrong to be righted or
remedied to the extent possible. The courts,
especially the Courts of Record, view the
same problem ex ante. "It involves looking
forward and asking what effects the
decision about this case will have in the
future"[19]. To be more accurate, the
courts balance both perspectives. I reckon
Section 15 of the Act requires us to balance
both the competing perspectives: ex post
and ex ante.

[19] [The Legal Analyst, Ward
Farnsworth, The University of Chicago
Press, Ed. 2007. P. 5]

100. So I conclude that the
Board, in the first place, has mechanically
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
relied on the Social Investigation Report
and MH Report, without analyzing the
older adult's case on its own. Similarly, the
Appellate Court has also endorsed the
order in appeal, without exercising the
powers it has under Section 101. So both
fail the legal scrutiny; they have failed to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in them."

32. In the judgment quoted here-inabove, Bombay High Court has rightly held
that the television, internet and socialmedia are having disastrous effects on the
impressionable minds of the adolescents
and resulting in loss of their innocence at a
very early and tender age.

33. Law is an evolving concept and
has to keep pace with time. This court has
no hesitation to hold that the nefarious
effects
of
the
visual
mediums
like
television, internet and social-media on
adolescents are not being controlled, nor it
appears that the government can control the
same, to prevent its deleterious effect on
the adolescents, due to the uncontrollable
nature of technologies involved. The
"Nirbhaya case" was an exception and not
a general rule and all juveniles cannot be
subjected and tried like adult without
proper consideration of the overall social
and psychological effects on their psyche.

34. In this case the victim and the
juvenile both are minors. They continued in
consensual physical relationship for about
an year and only after the victim became
pregnant their relationship was discovered.
The revisionist with the help of two adults
got her pregnancy aborted by administering
medicine. There is nothing on record to
indicate that the revisionist is a predator on
the prowl and is prone to repeating the
offence without any provocation. He never
indulged in any such or other offence
earlier. Maturity of his mind has not been
certified by the psychologist. Merely
because he committed a heinous crime he
cannot be put to par with an adult when his
social exposure was also found to be
deficient by the psychologist.

35. In view of above consideration the
impugned judgments and orders passed by
both the courts below are set aside.

36. Criminal Revision is allowed.

37. The revisionist is directed to be
tried as a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice
Board in accordance with law.

38. Registrar (compliance) is directed
to communicate this order to the Juvenile
Justice Board, Kaushambi for necessary
compliance within three days.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 1032
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Government Appeal No. 115 of 2025

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Dhirendra Kumar ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ashutosh Kumar Sand

Counsel for the Respondent:
Pranvesh, Saurabh Kesarwani

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertained leave to appeal against
acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether it