Safiya Malik

In a recent judicial pronouncement, the Delhi High Court has given a judgement on whether a minor, declared fit to be tried as an adult, can undergo joint proceedings with an adult accused in the same trial. This decision arises from a revision petition challenging a trial court’s rejection of an application under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The case revolves around a school stabbing incident that resulted in the death of a teacher. The petitioner, who was a minor at the time of the offense, was subjected to a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which determined that he should be tried as an adult. The central question before the court was whether, despite this determination, the petitioner was still entitled to a separate trial from the adult accused.

The case concerns an incident that took place on September 26, 2016, at Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Sultanpuri Road, Nangloi, Delhi. According to the prosecution, the petitioner and co-accused, both of whom were students of Class 12, allegedly attacked their teacher in a classroom with a knife and a punching weapon. The attack was purportedly motivated by a grievance against the teacher, who had reportedly played a role in the petitioner’s removal from the school rolls due to absenteeism. The teacher sustained multiple stab wounds and was rushed to Sri Balaji Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries, leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 186, 353, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Upon investigation, both accused were arrested the following day. The weapons used in the assault were recovered based on their disclosures. School records confirmed that the petitioner’s date of birth was October 29, 1998, making him 17 years old at the time of the offense, while the co-accused, Vivek Kumar, was an adult. The JJB conducted a preliminary assessment as per Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, assessing the petitioner’s mental and physical maturity to understand the nature and consequences of the offense. On January 9, 2017, the JJB stated that the petitioner should be tried as an adult and transferred the case to the Children’s Court.

The petitioner challenged the JJB’s order before the Sessions Court, which dismissed his appeal, affirming the preliminary assessment. He subsequently filed a revision petition in the Delhi High Court but later withdrew it. Meanwhile, the trial court ordered that the petitioner’s case be heard jointly with the adult co-accused. Charges were framed against both accused under Sections 186, 353, 302, and 34 IPC on December 19, 2018. At this stage, the petitioner moved an application under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, arguing that his trial alongside an adult contravened the statutory mandate of separate proceedings for minors. The trial court rejected this application in May 2022, prompting the present revision petition before the High Court.

The Delhi High Court conducted a detailed examinationof the legal provisions governing juvenile trials, particularly Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which states: “there shall be no joint proceedings of a child alleged to be in conflict with law, with a person who is not a child.” The petitioner’s counsel argued that, despite the JJB’s determination that he be tried as an adult, he remained a “child” under the statutory definition and should not be tried alongside an adult. The court examined various judicial precedents and observed that “even when a child is sent up for trial as an adult before a Children’s Court, the child does not become an adult or ‘major’ but is only to be treated differently in view of the seriousness of the offense.”

The court distinguished between the statutory language “tried as an adult” and “tried with an adult” and held that these terms are not interchangeable. It noted that “Section 23 overrides all other procedural laws, including Section 223 of the Cr.P.C., to ensure that children, even when tried as adults, undergo separate proceedings from adult co-accused.” The court examined various principles of juvenile justice and stated that “a juvenile’s trial is offender-oriented rather than offense-oriented, in contrast to the trial of adult offenders.” The judgment cited case law stating that “children are entitled to procedural safeguards such as privacy protections, use of non-stigmatizing language, and a focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution.”

The prosecution, arguing against the petitioner’s claim, contended that Section 23 applies only to minors tried before the JJB and not those transferred for trial as adults. The state argued that separate trials would result in inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural inefficiencies. However, the court found that “the statutory mandate is clear that juveniles, even when deemed fit to be tried as adults, must not undergo joint proceedings with adults.” The judgement underscored the legislature’s intent to preserve distinct adjudicatory mechanisms for minors and adults.

In examining similar cases, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Abuzar Hossain v. State of W.B. (2012) 10 SCC 489, where it was held that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage and that juveniles are entitled to special legal protections even when accused of serious offenses. The court also considered the Bombay High Court’s judgement in Mumtaz Ahmed Nasir Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2018 SCC OnLine Bom 15847), which stated that “while the trial of an adult offender is offense-oriented, a juvenile’s trial is offender-oriented, focusing on rehabilitation.” The court stated that these precedents reinforced the principle that “children, irrespective of their classification for trial purposes, should not be subjected to standard criminal procedures applicable to adults.”

The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court’s order and directed that the petitioner’s trial be conducted separately from the adult co-accused. The Court observed that a child in conflict with the law, even if tried as an adult, is still entitled to procedural safeguards under the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court stated:

"Even though, at first blush this may seem like an unnecessary exercise, it would sanitize the process and bring it in consonance with the provisions of the Act and in tune with the legal mandate. Considering the prohibition is to ‘joint proceedings’, there can be no doubt that the CCL must be tried independently from the adult offender and the recording of evidence relating to the rest of the witnesses and the final tail end of the trial including the arguments, ought to be conducted independently”.

"Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside to the extent that the trial of the petitioner/CCL going onwards would be held separately from that of the adult co-accused”.

Case Title: CCL ‘K’ v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:1386

Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 436/2022

Bench: Justice Anish Dayal

[Read/Download order]