# Minor 'X'. Revisionist (In Jail) v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 938
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/minor-x-revisionist-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47933
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015 - Section 102 - Revision ,
Section 15 - Preliminary assessment into
heinous offences by Board , Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 342, 452, 354,
326k, 326kh, 302, 376 & 511 - The
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 7/8 , The
Schedule Castes And The Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities ) Act , 1989 -
Section 3(2)5
-
Opinion of
a
child
psychologist or other professional dealing
in child psychology or child psychiatry is
mandatorily to be taken unless the Board
comprises any such member.(Para -12)
(B) The Juvenile Justice Rules Model
Rules, 2016 - Rule 10A - Board is
empowered to take the assistance of
psychologist/psychiatrist
and
other
experts who had experience of working
with
the
children
under
difficult
circumstances - "the ability to understand
the
consequences
of the offence"
-
consequences of the offence could be
numerous and manifold which cannot be
just linked to a framework - for this
purpose, the overall picture as also future
consequences with reference to the facts
of the case are required to be constantly
analysed by the Board. (Para - 9)

FIR against revisionist-accused person -
harassed a 16-year-old girl - matter before
Juvenile Justice Board - age determination
inquiry - declared a juvenile - appealed -
order was affirmed - hence revision - Juvenile
submitted an application to Board - for
psychologist/psychiatrist
examination
-
request rejected - questions - assess
individual's
mental
capacity
and
understanding of act's consequences - unclear
if any board members are professionals in
child psychology - appellate court concurred
with Juvenile Justice Board's assessment -
stating court did not independently evaluate
facts. (Para - 4,11,12)

HELD:-Record does not indicate that opinion
of professional experts on two counts i.e., the
mental capacity to commit the crime and
ability to understand the consequences of the
act have been elicited at any stage. Impugned
orders set aside. Matter of preliminary
assessment remanded to the Juvenile Justice
Board for expeditious proceedings. (Para -
12,13)

Revision disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Barun Chandra Thakur Vs Master Bholu & anr. ,
Criminal Appeal No. 950 of 2022

## Text

938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
between them is of civil nature and the
revisionist has unsuccessfully tried to give
it a cloak of criminality. Such an attempt
must fail. I do not find any illegality,
impropriety or irregularity in the impugned
order and thus revision is liable to be
dismissed.

13. The revision is, accordingly,
dismissed at the stage of admission.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 938
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2022

Minor 'X'. ...Revisionist (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Abhishek Kumar, Sri Anjani Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Ms. Aaarti Agrawal, Sri Vinay Kumar
Singh

(A) Criminal Law - The Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015 - Section 102 - Revision ,
Section 15 - Preliminary assessment into
heinous offences by Board , Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 342, 452, 354,
326k, 326kh, 302, 376 & 511 - The
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 7/8 , The
Schedule Castes And The Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities ) Act , 1989 -
Section 3(2)5
-
Opinion of
a
child
psychologist or other professional dealing
in child psychology or child psychiatry is
mandatorily to be taken unless the Board
comprises any such member.(Para -12)
(B) The Juvenile Justice Rules Model
Rules, 2016 - Rule 10A - Board is
empowered to take the assistance of
psychologist/psychiatrist
and
other
experts who had experience of working
with
the
children
under
difficult
circumstances - "the ability to understand
the
consequences
of the offence"
-
consequences of the offence could be
numerous and manifold which cannot be
just linked to a framework - for this
purpose, the overall picture as also future
consequences with reference to the facts
of the case are required to be constantly
analysed by the Board. (Para - 9)

FIR against revisionist-accused person -
harassed a 16-year-old girl - matter before
Juvenile Justice Board - age determination
inquiry - declared a juvenile - appealed -
order was affirmed - hence revision - Juvenile
submitted an application to Board - for
psychologist/psychiatrist
examination
-
request rejected - questions - assess
individual's
mental
capacity
and
understanding of act's consequences - unclear
if any board members are professionals in
child psychology - appellate court concurred
with Juvenile Justice Board's assessment -
stating court did not independently evaluate
facts. (Para - 4,11,12)

HELD:-Record does not indicate that opinion
of professional experts on two counts i.e., the
mental capacity to commit the crime and
ability to understand the consequences of the
act have been elicited at any stage. Impugned
orders set aside. Matter of preliminary
assessment remanded to the Juvenile Justice
Board for expeditious proceedings. (Para -
12,13)

Revision disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Barun Chandra Thakur Vs Master Bholu & anr. ,
Criminal Appeal No. 950 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)
11 All. Minor 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
939

1. It appears that name of the
revisionist-juvenile has been disclosed in
the memo of revision. This fault from the
side of revisionist escaped detection by the
Registry.
The
concerned
Registry
is
directed to delete the name of the
revisionist-minor from the title of the
revision as fed and shown in the data on
official website and represent him as
"Minor 'X'.

2. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms.
Aaarti Agrawal assisted by Sri Vinay
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Staterespondent.
None
appears
for
the
respondent no. 2 despite service of notice.

3. This criminal revision has been
filed
challenging
the
order
dated
11.08.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board, Azamgarh and further challenging
the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the
Special Judge, POCSO Act, Azamgarh in
Criminal Appeal No. 51/2021 affirming the
order of the Juvenile Justice Board
whereby it was ordered that the child in
conflict with law shall be tried as an adult
in terms of provisions of Section 15 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for criminal case
arising out of Case Crime No. 40 of 2018
under Sections 307, 342, 452, 354, 326k,
326kh, 302, 376, 511 IPC, Sections 7/8
POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST
Act, Police Station Nizamabad, DistrictAzamgarh.

4. Facts relevant for the purpose of
this revision are as below:

A FIR was registered against the
revisionist-accused
person
with
the
allegations that he used to harass the
daughter, aged about 16 years, of the
informant; the girl was compelled to
change her mobile number. On 07.05.2018,
the accused came to his house and asked
from his daughter about the new number;
when she refused to give the same, he
locked the victim in the room and set her
ablaze after pouring kerosene oil. She
sustained 91% of the burn injuries and
thereafter, succumbed to it. The matter
came before the Juvenile Justice Board; the
age determination inquiry was conducted
by
the
Juvenile
Justice
Board
on
19.09.2020 and he was declared a juvenile
aged about 17 years 4 months on the date
of the occurrence. Thereafter, the Juvenile
Justice Board proceeded to conduct an
inquiry under Section 15 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015 and came to a conclusion
that the juvenile should be tried as an adult
and transmitted the matter to the Sessions
Court by an order dated 11.08.2021.
Against the aforesaid order of the Juvenile
Justice Board, an appeal was preferred on
behalf of the juvenile accused before the
Special Judge, POCSO Act, Appeal No. 51
of 2021 and the same was dismissed and
the order of the Juvenile Justice Board was
affirmed by the order dated 23.12.2021.
Now, the juvenile has come in revision
under the provisions of Section 102 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 challenging the
order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order
dated 23.12.2021 passed by the appellate
Court.

5. It is contended on behalf of the
revisionist that the impugned orders are
arbitrary and bereft of cogent reasons and
have been passed by non-application of
mind; the grounds raised by the revisionist
before the appellate court below have not
been considered and no finding have been
recorded thereon. It was incumbent upon
the courts below to take assistance of
psychologist/psychiatrist or other experts
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before deciding the appeal but no such
measure was taken; the social investigation
report clearly showed that the juvenile had
no criminal tendencies; no adverse opinion
was expressed by the people of the locality
against the juvenile about his conduct,
character and behaviour, but those facts
have been ignored; the question and
answers, which were put to the juvenile for
the purpose of inquiry under Section 15 of
the Act does not show that the accused had
any intended mind or physical capacity to
commit the crime and understand the
consequences of his act. As the mental and
physical capacity have not been fairly
determined, therefore, the orders are not
sustainable.

6. The provisions of Section 15 of the
Act are as below:

"(1) In case of a heinous offence
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 allegedly
committed the offence, and may pass an
order in accordance with the provisions of
subsection (3) of section 18:

Provided
that
for
such an
assessment, the Board may take the
assistance of experienced psychologists or
psycho-social workers or other experts.

Explanation.--For the purposes
of this section, it is clarified that
preliminary assessment is not a trial, but
is to assess the capacity of such child to
commit and understand the consequences
of the alleged offence.

(2) 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 in summons case
under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974):

Provided that the order of the
Board to dispose of the matter shall be
appealable under sub-section (2) of
section 101:

Provided
further
that
the
assessment under this section shall be
completed within the period specified in
section 14."

7. In support of the arguments, putforth by the revisionist, the judgment of the
Apex Court in Barun Chandra Thakur vs
Master Bholu and Another in Criminal
Appeal No. 950 of 2022 decided on
13.07.2022 has been referred to.

8. I went through the above judgment.

9. The Apex Court in Para-62
observed that it was obligatory on the part
of the Board to conduct preliminary
assessment on four counts, as mentioned
under Section 15 of the Act, however, there
being no guidelines as to how the Board
shall conduct such assessment, therefore, it
has to largely depend upon its own
wisdom. Thereafter, the Apex Court
noticed the provisions of Rule 10A of the
Juvenile Justice Rules Model Rules, 2016in
Para-64 of the judgment observing that the
Board is empowered to take the assistance
of
psychologist/psychiatrist
and
other
experts who had experience of working
with
the
children
under
difficult
circumstances. The Apex Court did not
agree with the opinion that the mental
capacity and ability to understand the
consequences of the offences were one and
the same. The Apex Court said that it shall
include not only immediate consequences
11 All. Minor 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
941
but also the far reaching consequences.
While dealing with the phrase "the ability
to understand the consequences of the
offence", the Apex Court observed in Para68 that the consequences of the offence
could be numerous and manifold which
cannot be just linked to a framework; and
for this purpose, the overall picture as also
future consequences with reference to the
facts of the case are required to be
constantly analysed by the Board.

10. The Apex Court observed as
below in Para nos. 75 and 79 of the
judgment:-

"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 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.

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 psychosocial workers or other experts would
operate as mandatory unless the Board
itself comprises of at least one member
who is a practicing professional 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 therefore."

11. On perusal of the impugned
orders, it is revealed that an application was
moved by the juvenile requesting the
Juvenile Justice Board to get himself
examined by a psychologist/psychiatrist,
however, it appears that this specific
request was not accepted. I perused the
impugned order passed by Juvenile Justice
Board. It appears that though, the Juvenile
Justice Board put some questions with the
objective of assessing his mental capacity
and
the
capacity
to
understand
the
consequences of the act, however, it is not
clear that any of the members of the Board
was a professional in child psychology. I
also went through the order of appellate
Court. The appellate Court was aware of
the fact that such an application was moved
and aware of the fact that the same has
been dismissed. The appellate Court
concurred with the conclusion drawn by the
Juvenile Justice Board regarding physical,
mental
capacity
and
the
ability
to
understand the consequences of his act, as
expressed by the Juvenile Justice Board.
The appellate Court did not assess the facts
and circumstances coming before it on its
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
own and has simply gone with the view of
the Juvenile Justice Board.

12. It does not appear from the
material on record that the opinion of
professional experts on two counts i.e., the
mental capacity to commit the crime and
ability to understand the consequences of
the act have been elicited at any stage. As
held by the Apex Court, opinion of a child
psychologist or other professional dealing
in child psychology or child psychiatry is
mandatorily to be taken unless the Board
comprises any such member, hence, it can
safely be said that the impugned orders
have been passed not strictly in accordance
with law. The matter of preliminary
assessment requires reconsideration for
which it shall be appropriate that the matter
be remanded to the Board to decide it
afresh in the light of the observations of the
Apex Court.

13. The impugned orders dated
23.12.2021 and 11.08.2021, are therefore
hereby set aside. The matter of preliminary
assessment is remanded to the Juvenile
Justice Board. As the incident pertains to
May 2018, hence, the Juvenile Justice
Board
is
directed
to
conduct
the
proceedings of preliminary assessment
expeditiously and preferably within a
month of receipt of this order.

14. Accordingly, this revision is
disposed of.

15. The order of this Court be
certified to the Juvenile Justice Board
concerned immediately.

16. The Registry is directed to
circulate the order of the Apex Court
passed in Barun Chandra Thakur vs
Master Bholu and Another in Criminal
Appeal No. 950 of 2022 decided on
13.07.2022, for compliance.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 942
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1036 of 2022

X (Minor) ...Revisionist/Accused (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Satendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Mukesh Kumar Maurya

(A) Criminal Law - The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 - Section 102 - revision , Section
12(1) - bail to juvenile - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 376AB - The
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Section- 5M/6 - Bail
for juveniles is not mandatory in all cases
- it can be denied if the court believes it
would defeat the ends of justice - Juvenile
Justice Act differentiates offenses into
petty, serious, and heinous categories -
end of justice is a crucial consideration in
juvenile cases. (Para - 7)

(B) The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 -
Section 3 - Courts to adhere to Section-3's
general principles as a guiding factor
when exercising their powers - child's best
interest, demands of accused & victim's
family.(Para - 8)

(C) The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - "ends
of justice" - holistic view - seen through
three
angles
-
child's
welfare
and
betterment, demands of justice to victim
and her family & concerns of society at