The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed the decision of a Juvenile Court that had tried a juvenile, charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), as an adult. The Court's ruling underscored significant procedural irregularities and emphasized strict compliance with the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015.

Deficiencies in Preliminary Assessment

The division bench, comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth, observed that the preliminary assessment mandated under Section 15(1) of the JJ Act was conducted more than five years after the alleged offence. This assessment, intended to evaluate the mental and physical capacity of the juvenile to commit the offence and understand its consequences, was deemed invalid due to the delay. The bench highlighted that retrospective assessment of a juvenile’s psychological state is "practically impossible."

Section 14(3) of the JJ Act stipulates that such an assessment for heinous offences must be concluded within three months of the child’s first production before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Court found that this timeline was grossly violated, rendering the assessment process ineffective. Consequently, the bench ruled that the appellant was unfit to be tried as an adult, describing the exercise as an “eye-wash” and directing that the juvenile be treated as a “Child in Conflict with Law” (CCL).

Procedural Violations

The case concerned an alleged offence that occurred on May 30, 2018, involving the sexual assault of a 4-year-old girl. The juvenile was arrested on the same day. However, the application for preliminary assessment was filed by the prosecutor only in September 2021, by which time the accused had attained the age of 20 years. This delay, the Court noted, frustrated the intent of the three-month timeline prescribed under Section 14(3).

Moreover, the Court strongly criticized the Juvenile Court for its failure to adhere to fundamental legal procedures. It noted that proper examination of police reports, framing of charges, and recording of prosecution witness statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were entirely omitted. The bench expressed astonishment that the juvenile was convicted and sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment without a trial that complied with procedural requirements.

Findings of the Division Bench

The bench further noted that the application under Section 15 of the JJ Act was filed three years and four months after the incident, rendering the legislative intent of time-bound inquiries meaningless. It held that this delay not only defeated the purpose of the statutory timelines but also violated the rights of the juvenile under the JJ Act.

“In all this process, the legislative objective of ensuring timely inquiries has been disregarded, and the rights of the CCL, which the JJ Act aims to safeguard, have been compromised,” the bench remarked.

Sentencing and Compensation

After evaluating the evidence, the High Court convicted the juvenile of penetrative sexual assault under Section 5 of the POCSO Act, as well as offences under Sections 341, 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In consideration of the juvenile’s status, the Court imposed the maximum punishment permissible under the JJ Act, which is three years' imprisonment.

Since the appellant had already been incarcerated for three years and nine months, the Court deemed the sentence as served. Additionally, following the principles established in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, the Court recommended compensation of ₹5 lakh for the victim. 

This judgment reinforces the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards laid down in the JJ Act to ensure the protection of juveniles' rights. By overturning the flawed orders of the JJB and the Juvenile Court, the High Court upheld the principles of justice and reaffirmed the statutory intent behind the Act.

Case Title: XXXX v. XXXX

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth