Himachal Pradesh HC Upholds Trial Of 16-Year-Old As Adult | Says Brutality In Rape Of 7-Year-Old Reflects Sufficient Maturity
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has upheld the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court to try a juvenile, aged 16 years and one month at the time of the incident, as an adult for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the juvenile, challenging the preliminary assessment conducted under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and affirmed the legality of referring the case to the Children’s Court.
The bench concluded that there was no legal infirmity in the orders passed by the lower courts and held that the time period under Section 14(3) of the JJ Act for completion of preliminary assessment is directory and not mandatory. The court further observed that the findings of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Medical Board regarding the petitioner’s mental and physical capacity to commit the offence were sustainable and adequately supported by the record. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
The matter arose from the alleged incident that took place on 12.02.2021 when a minor girl, aged 7 years, reported that she had been sexually assaulted. According to the facts recorded in the judgment, the victim informed her father that she would visit the house of the petitioner to play. After returning, she complained of stomach pain, and upon inquiry by her parents, she disclosed that the petitioner had taken her to a cowshed and committed rape.
The police registered an FIR and investigated the matter. The petitioner, who was found to be 16 years, 1 month, and 23 days old at the time of the incident, was consequently charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Due to his age, the case was presented before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).
In compliance with Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the JJB conducted a preliminary assessment to determine whether the juvenile should be tried as an adult. The assessment included an evaluation by a Medical Board, which assessed the juvenile’s IQ at 92 and noted that he possessed sufficient understanding of the consequences of his actions.
The JJB also considered the statements of the victim, particularly those under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, wherein she stated that the petitioner had raped her, gave her water, raped her again, cleaned the blood, and warned her not to reveal the incident.
The Board concluded that the petitioner had both mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and submitted the matter to the Children’s Court for trial as an adult. The JJB found that there was nothing in the social investigation report to suggest any mental illness, physical incapacity, or parental neglect. The report showed that the petitioner had access to basic necessities and lived in a healthy family environment.
The petitioner appealed before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla. The appellate court concurred with the findings of the JJB, relying on the interaction with the petitioner, the Medical Board report, and the victim’s statements. It dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court. The petition challenged the legality of the preliminary assessment on multiple grounds: that the inquiry was not concluded within the time prescribed under Section 14(3) of the JJ Act, that the Medical Board only evaluated mental and not physical capacity, that the Board used a standard questionnaire instead of detailed clinical analysis, and that documents related to the case were not supplied to the Medical Board.
The petitioner argued that the failure to complete the preliminary assessment within three months invalidated the entire proceedings. It was also contended that the Medical Board’s findings were insufficient and lacked examination of physical capacity. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that these deficiencies vitiated the conclusion to try the petitioner as an adult.
The State opposed the revision, arguing that the three-month period under Section 14(3) was directory and not mandatory, and the lower courts had correctly evaluated the mental and physical condition of the petitioner. The State further submitted that the Medical Board and JJB had interacted with the petitioner and arrived at a legally tenable conclusion.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla addressed each of the grounds raised in the revision petition and referred to multiple Supreme Court decisions to delineate the scope of revisional jurisdiction.
In regard to the petitioner’s argument that delay in concluding the inquiry under Section 14(3) of the JJ Act vitiated the process, the court stated: "The submission is not acceptable." Quoting X (Juvenile) v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 473, the court noted: "The period for completion of preliminary assessment under Section 14(3) is not mandatory but directory."
The bench elaborated: "Where consequences for default for a prescribed period in a statute are not mentioned, the same cannot be held to be mandatory."
On the issue of the Medical Board's scope of assessment, the judgment recorded: "The JJB relied upon the MLC of the petitioner, in which it was specifically mentioned that there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner was unable to perform sexual intercourse... these were the relevant considerations to determine the physical and mental status of the petitioner."
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 870, the court observed: "A child with average intelligence/IQ will have the intellectual knowledge of the consequences of his actions. But whether or not he can control himself or his actions will depend on his level of emotional competence."
Referring to the victim’s testimony, the court recorded: "The conduct of the petitioner of repeatedly raping the victim, cleaning the blood and threatening her not to reveal the incident to any person showed that the petitioner was aware of the consequences of his act."
With respect to the claim that documents were not provided to the Medical Board, the bench stated: "The mere fact that the documents were not forwarded to the Medical Board cannot lead to an inference that the report issued by the Medical Board was bad."
On the contention that there was no evidence of physical capacity, the court held that both mental and physical elements were evaluated based on the Medical Certificate, the victim’s statement, and the social investigation report.
Referring to Sunil vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/MP/0616/2021, the court noted: "An offence of rape, being carnal in nature, cannot be committed unless a person has the specific knowledge of the same."
Finally, on the scope of revisional jurisdiction, the court cited Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204 and Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165, stating: "The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence... the revisional jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting a miscarriage of justice."
The High Court, in conclusion, stated that there was no infirmity in the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Sessions Judge. The bench stated: "Therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgments passed by learned Courts below, and no interference is required with them while exercising the revisional jurisdiction; hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed."
It was further clarified: "The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case."
The court explicitly endorsed the JJB’s assessment, holding that: "The JJB was justified in relying upon the report of the Medical Board regarding the IQ of the petitioner." It also accepted the evaluation of physical capacity through the Medical Certificate and social investigation report, concluding that: "These were the relevant considerations to determine the physical and mental status of the petitioner."
With regard to the timeline under Section 14(3), the court stated: "The period of three months is directory and not mandatory... submission that the proceedings are vitiated due to non-completion of the inquiry within three months cannot be accepted."
On the allegations regarding non-provision of case documents to the Medical Board, the court concluded: "The Medical Board was to assess the mental capacity of the petitioner, which it had assessed and found the petitioner’s IQ to be 92... JJ Board was to determine the mental and physical capacity of the petitioner to commit the crime."
The revision petition was accordingly dismissed in its entirety.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
Case Title: XXX vs. State of H.P.
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:24437
Case Number: Cr. Revision No. 392 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
