S.19 JJ Act | Children's Court Can't Brush Aside Independent Assessment To See If Juvenile Can Be Tried As Adult: Telangana HC Reiterates

The Telangana High Court has reiterated when determining whether a child-in-conflict with law should be tried as an adult, the Children's Court/Sessions Court cannot brush aside its duty of independent assessment by simply relying on the assessment report by the Board under Section 15 of the Act.

The court underscored that the children's court has the "mandatory duty to make an independent assessment" about the necessity of trying the child as an adult. 

A division bench of Justice K. Surender and Justice E.V. Venugopal noted that the assessment given by the Children's Court under section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, was made with the sole observation that the child-in-conflict with law had not challenged the order of the JJB categorising him as an adult under section 15, thus making it final. It said that such an observation cannot be called be an assessment as it was without any reasons. 

The bench observed that the Children's Court-Sessions Judge had found that, based on the findings of the Juvenile Justice Board, the accused has not preferred any revision, and the findings have attained finality to treat the accused as an adult, and accordingly, the case was tried.

The bench said that Section 19 in the context of deciding whether a child can be tried as an adult shows that the provision makes it mandatory for the Children's Court to independently assess the child regarding his (i) mental and physical capacity to commit such offence; (ii) ability to understand the consequences, and (iii) the circumstances under which the offence was committed.

"The Children's Court cannot brush aside its duty of independent assessment by relying on the assessment report by the Board under Section 15 of the Act. It cannot be an empty formality by the Children's Court, and the assessment by Children's Court cannot be wholly on the basis of the preliminary assessment made by the Board. The intent of the Legislature is clear and mandates the assessment of the child at two stages. The first stage is by the Board, which is a preliminary assessment, and after the case is sent to the Children's Court, the Judge of the Children's Court has the mandatory duty to make an independent assessment about the necessity of trying the child as an adult," the bench said. 

It further said that as seen from the judgment of the Sessions Court it had said that “on due assessment of the child in conflict with law, this Court has come to a conclusion that he has to be tried as an adult as specified under Section 19(1)(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act.”.

The bench thereafter said, "By no stretch of imagination, can such findings of the learned Sessions Judge be deemed as an assessment, which is mandatory under Section 19(1)(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act. The assessment of the learned Sessions Judge is bereft of any reasoning. The details of the assessment that were made ought to have been narrated by the learned Sessions Judge before concluding that the child/accused could be tried as an adult.”

Background

The appellant was accused of rape and murder of a 10-year-old boy in 2017. An FIR was registered, and the matter was taken cognizance of. The appellant, who was also a minor at the time of the incident, was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board for assessment, to determine whether he was to be tried as an adult or a minor.

Initially, the case was registered under Sections 364(Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 377(unnatural offences), 302(murder) IPC and under provisions of POCSO Act before the Juvenile Justice Board, as the appellant was classified as a child in conflict with the law. Subsequently, after assessing the appellant, the JJB transferred the case to Children's Court (Court of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act).

The JJB concluded that the appellant should be tried as an adult. The appellant was produced before the Children's Court, which, upon due assessment, determined that the appellant should be tried as an adult, as specified under Section 19(1)(i) JJ Act. The Court took cognizance of the case; ultimately the appellant was convicted under Section 6 (Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) POCSO Act and IPC Sections 364, 377, 302, and 201 of IPC and was sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment along. 

Findings

Perusing the provisions of the JJ Act the bench said that in the first step, a preliminary assessment is required by the JJB and after transfer to the Children's Court, in the exercise of powers under Section 19, the Children's Court has to make an independent assessment whether to try the child as an adult. 

The bench referred to Supreme Court's decision in Ajeet Gurjar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) where it was had held, "Therefore, holding an inquiry in terms of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 is not an empty formality. The reason is that if the Children's Court comes to the conclusion that there is no need to try the child as an adult, he will be entitled to be treated differently in the sense that action can be taken against him only in terms of Section 18 of the JJ Act". 

The bench further observed that the Sessions Judge further found that the child in conflict with law has not preferred any revision and that the findings have reached finality, which is "also improper and incorrect".

"The child in conflict with law not questioning the preliminary assessment of the Board will not in any manner complete the requirement of an independent assessment by the Children's Court Judge before trying him as an adult. The child not questioning the preliminary assessment of the Board will not absolve the Children's Court Judge from making an independent assessment of the mental and physical capacity of the child, and his/her ability to understand the offence and the circumstances under which the offence was committed," the court underscored. 

Observing that children's court observations without conducting an independent is bad in law, the bench remanded the matter back to the Children's Court with a direction to pass orders in compliance with the Arjeet Gurjar judgement.

"If the Children's Court comes to a conclusion that the appellant can be tried as an adult, there need not be a de novo trial and the Children's Court can pass judgment on the basis of evidence available on record and the independent assessment made by it. The Children's Court shall give preference to this case and dispose of it as expeditiously as possible," the bench added. 

Case title: X vs. State of Telangana

Counsel for appellant: Mohd Azhar

Counsel for respondent: Arun Kumar Dodla, APP.

Click Here To Read/Download Order