Juvenile X v. State of U.P) arising out of judgment and order dated

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for revisionist; learned AGA for State and perused the trial court record.

3. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 13 / Special Judge (POCSO Act) Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2021 (Juvenile X vs. State of U.P) arising out of judgment and order dated 16.02.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat in S.C. No. 266 of 2021 (State vs. Juvenile X) in Case Crime No. 501 of 2020, under Sections- 376AB, 506 IPC read with Section 5E/6 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Ghatampur, District- Kanpur Nagar.

4. The Juvenile Justice Board after determination of the age of 2 revisionist as more than 16 years and less than 18 years subjected him to preliminary assessment as per Section 15 and after taking the help of a social worker, Divisional Psychology Centre, Kanpur Dehat, declared him capable of understanding the consequences of his act and was found to be physically and mentally capable of committing the alleged heinous offence of rape against minor girl.

5. The order of Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed by the Appellate Court and hence this revision.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the orders passed by both the courts below are not in accordance with law. The nature and type of psychological test of revisionist was not disclosed in the report. The other parameters of assessment were not assessed at all.

7. Learned A.G.A has opposed the submissions and has stated that the orders passed by the court below are justified.

8. This court finds that the Psychologist found mental capability of revisionist of very low standard. He was found to be extremely introvert but he was not found to be suffering from any neurological or mental disorder. His I.Q level was found to be average.

9. In Barun Chandra Thakur s. Bholu reported in 2022 (0) (Supreme) 568 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. 3

10. 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; (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 4 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 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; 5

11. 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 within two months as 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.

12. The order dated 08.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 13 / Special Judge (POCSO Act) Kanpur Dehat, as well as order dated 16.02.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat in S.C. No. 266 of 2021 are quashed and set aside.

13. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :- 07.10.2025 Rohit ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for revisionist; learned AGA for State and perused the trial court record.

3. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 13 / Special Judge (POCSO Act) Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2021 (Juvenile X vs. State of U.P) arising out of judgment and order dated 16.02.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat in S.C. No. 266 of 2021 (State vs. Juvenile X) in Case Crime No. 501 of 2020, under Sections- 376AB, 506 IPC read with Section 5E/6 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Ghatampur, District- Kanpur Nagar.

4. The Juvenile Justice Board after determination of the age of 2 revisionist as more than 16 years and less than 18 years subjected him to preliminary assessment as per Section 15 and after taking the help of a social worker, Divisional Psychology Centre, Kanpur Dehat, declared him capable of understanding the consequences of his act and was found to be physically and mentally capable of committing the alleged heinous offence of rape against minor girl.

5. The order of Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed by the Appellate Court and hence this revision.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the orders passed by both the courts below are not in accordance with law. The nature and type of psychological test of revisionist was not disclosed in the report. The other parameters of assessment were not assessed at all.

7. Learned A.G.A has opposed the submissions and has stated that the orders passed by the court below are justified.

8. This court finds that the Psychologist found mental capability of revisionist of very low standard. He was found to be extremely introvert but he was not found to be suffering from any neurological or mental disorder. His I.Q level was found to be average.

9. In Barun Chandra Thakur s. Bholu reported in 2022 (0) (Supreme) 568 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. 3

10. 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; (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 4 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 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; 5

11. 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 within two months as 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.

12. The order dated 08.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 13 / Special Judge (POCSO Act) Kanpur Dehat, as well as order dated 16.02.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat in S.C. No. 266 of 2021 are quashed and set aside.

13. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :- 07.10.2025 Rohit ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad