Punjab and Haryana High Court Refuses to Treat Child Registered Under POCSO Act as ‘Adult’ Based on Psychological Evaluation Conducted with a Delay of 5 Years

The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the Juvenile Court order in which a youth registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act was tried as an adult.

Under Section 15(1) of the Act, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is required to make a preliminary assessment of the child’s mental and physical capacity to commit an offence, his ability to understand the consequences of the offence, and the circumstances in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. crime has been committed.

Section 14(3) provides that in case of serious offenses under section 15, preliminary consideration shall be disposed of by the Board within three months from the date of first birth of the child.

Judge Sanjeev Prakash Sharma And Judge Sanjay Vashisth He noted that the preliminary evaluation here was made more than five years later, in order to examine the child’s psyche at the time of the alleged incident, and said: ““It is almost impossible to evaluate what a person of his mentality and mentality was thinking five years ago.”

“The entire exercise has been treated as an eyewash and deserves to be set aside. We therefore consider the appellant unfit to stand trial as an adult.” added the bench.

The court found that the child was arrested on the day of the alleged incident, that is, on 30.05.2018. The preliminary assessment required under Article 15 of the JJ Law was carried out following the application made by the Prosecutor on 28.09.2021. The child had reached 20 years and 6 months by that time. “The very purpose of the three months limitation provisions laid down under Section 14(3) of the JJ Act is frustrated,” The court stated this way.

Justice Vashisth also highlighted the need for retrial under CrPC against Juvenile in Conflict with the Law (CCL) after it was concluded that the youth would be tried as an adult.

However, the Court stated that the Juvenile Court “exceeded all limits of error” because the trial would begin with the examination of the police report, after which the indictment would be framed, and then the statements of the prosecution witnesses would be recorded before the court. . Under Section 313 Cr.PC, complete prosecution evidence was also required to be submitted to the CCL.

“None of these actions were taken. To the court’s surprise, such a trial was rarely heard, where the defendant was convicted of a crime and subsequently sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment without any trial in accordance with the law.” added the bench.

These observations were made during the hearing of the appeal against the conviction for the offense under Section 6 of the POCSO and the provisions of the IPC under which a youth was tried as an adult and sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment for sexual assault on a 4-year-old child. girl.

Examining the allegations, the Court determined that the alleged crime was committed on 30.05.2018, CCL was arrested on the same day and interrogated on 31.05.2018, that is, the next day. After completion of the evidence, the statement was recorded by the Board under Section 313 of Cr.PC on 03.01.2020 as per the proceedings recorded in the summons case.

The court noted that after 3 years and 4 months from the date of the incident and the arrest of CCL, on 28.09.2021, the Public Prosecutor “waked up” and applied for a preliminary evaluation in accordance with Article 15 of the JJ Law. .

The order under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act (orders relating to the child found to be unlawful) was passed by the JJB on 22.03.2022 and the Children’s Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the JJ Act, also passed the order on 02.04.2022 in Cr. He stated that according to the PC, an order was given to conduct a trial.

The division bench emphasized: “Approximately 4 years (3 years and 11 months) have passed in this entire process, and in the current case, the purpose of determining a period for investigation and preliminary evaluation has been damaged.“

“Even if the law, which is a guide in nature, is completely discarded by the Courts, it has no legislative purpose. In the present case, the right of no one other than CCL-Dxxx is affected, whose rights must be protected by the special Regulation, namely the JJ Act. Thus, the main purpose of the Statute was defeated,“The court expressed its opinion.

As a result, the Court annulled the JJB’s decision to try the teenager as an adult and treated him as CCL.

The bench considered the evidence placed before it and found that the appellant was a juvenile and found him guilty of committing the offense of penetrative sexual assault under Section 5 read with Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO and also guilty of the offenses under Section 341. , sentenced him to the harshest punishment that can be given to a three-year-old child, under Sections 342 and 506 IPC.

It held that the appellant’s entire sentence had already been served, as the appellant had already been imprisoned for 3 years and 9 months.

Referring to another case of Nipun Saxena vs. Union of India and others, the bench also recommended Rs.5 for non-compensation to the victim.

Mr Arjun SheoranAdvocate and Mr. Rohan Gupta, Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr Sharan SethiAddl. Attorney General Haryana v. State of Haryana, for the respondent(s).

Title: XXXX and XXXX