JJ Act | Juvenile Accused Can't Be Tried As Adult In Absence Of Preliminary Assessment & Report By JJB : Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court held that the conviction of the accused child who was a 'child in conflict with law' cannot be sustained unless the preliminary assessment to ascertain the physical and mental capacity of the child to commit the crime and the need to try the child as an adult or a juvenile was adhered to as the mandatory requirements under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

Reversing the findings of the High Court, the Bench Comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that the question of whether there is a need for trial of the accused child as an adult or a juvenile under Section 19 of JJ Act could only be decided based on the preliminary assessment conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board (“Board”) under Section 15 of JJ Act which ascertains whether a child who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years has the mental and physical capacity to commit the heinous offence alleged to be committed by him.

“As can be seen from the facts of the present case, there has been a flagrant violation of the mandatory requirements of Sections 15 and 19 of the JJ Act. Neither was the charge sheet against the accused appellant filed before the Board nor was any preliminary assessment conducted under Section 15, so as to find out whether the accused appellant was required to be tried as an adult.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta said.

In the instant case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused by the police, who was a Juvenile at the time of the commission of an offence, before the trial court without following the mandatory requirements of Sections 15 and 19 of the JJ Act. The trial court convicted the accused and the same was upheld by the High Court.

Against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court, the accused/appellant preferred a plea before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the Appellant contended that there had been a flagrant violation of a mandatory provision of Sections 15 and 19 of the JJ Act. She contended that despite knowing the fact that the appellant was CICL at the time of the commission of an offence, the charge sheet was submitted before the trial court by the police. She stressed that the child cannot be tried under the JJ Act unless the preliminary assessment to ascertain whether the child was physically and mentally fit to commit such an offence was completed.

Finding force in the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court held that the entire proceedings taken against the appellant right from the stage of investigation and the completion of trial stand vitiated as having been undertaken in gross violation of the mandatory requirements of the JJ Act.

“In absence of a preliminary assessment being conducted by the Board under Section 15, and without an order being passed by the Board under Section 15(1) read with Section 18(3), it was impermissible for the trial Court to have accepted the charge sheet and to have proceeded with the trial of the accused.”, the court said against the acceptance of charge sheet by the trial court.

In a nutshell, the court held that the accused who was a child in conflict with the law at the time of the commission of an offence cannot be tried by the trial court but only by the children court as mandated under Section 19 of the JJ Act. The court clarified that it was only after the preliminary assessment report of the JJ Board that the children's court under Section 19 would be eligible to try the accused child.

“By virtue of Section 19(1), the Children's Court, upon receiving such report of preliminary assessment undertaken by the Board under Section 15 may further decide as to whether there is a need for trial of the child as an adult or not.”, the court clarified.

While relying on its judgment of Ajeet Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that the procedure provided under Sections 15 and 19 is to be mandatorily followed by the court while trying the accused child for committing the heinous offence(s) under JJ Act.

The Supreme Court ultimately quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and directed that the appellant who is presently lodged in jail shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

The appeal was allowed accordingly.

Counsel For Petitioner(s) Ms. S. Janani, AOR Ms. Sharika Rai, Adv.

Counsel For Respondent(s) Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Bhanu Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Singh Rana, Adv.

Case Title: THIRUMOORTHY VERSUS STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment