Rajasthan High Court Quashes Order Referring Juveniles To Be Tried As Adults; Attempt To Commit Rape Not ‘Heinous Offence’ Under Juvenile Justice Act
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Rajasthan, Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the offences alleged against two juveniles did not fall within the category of heinous offences under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and set aside the appellate court’s direction to send the matter to the Children’s Court. The Court observed that none of the charges— including attempt to commit rape, sexual assault-related provisions, extortion, abetment of suicide and offences under the POCSO and IT Acts—carry a statutory minimum sentence of seven years, which is required for classifying an offence as heinous. The case was remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board to conduct the inquiry in accordance with law.
Criminal cases were registered against two juveniles for alleged offences under Sections 376/511, 354-A, 354-D, 384, 306 and 120-B of the IPC, Sections 7/8 and 11/12 of the POCSO Act, and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer, which decided on 26.03.2025 to conduct the inquiry itself instead of transferring the case to the Children’s Court.
The complainant filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, i.e., Special Judge, POCSO Act and Protection of Child Rights Commission Act, Court No.2, Ajmer, which on 16.06.2025 quashed the order of the Board and directed that the matter be sent for trial before the Children’s Court.
The petitioners contended before the High Court that none of the alleged offences carried a statutory minimum sentence of seven years, and therefore the case could not fall within the definition of “heinous offence” under Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. They argued that the Appellate Court erred in applying Section 15 of the Act, which applies only to heinous offences, and sought remand of the case to the Juvenile Justice Board. Reliance was placed on Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi (AIR 2020 SC 405).
The complainant opposed the petitions and argued that the petitioners attempted to commit rape, and since Section 376 IPC carries a minimum sentence of seven years, the case amounted to a heinous offence. They relied on Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu (2023) and a 2025 judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
The Court observed that the core issue was “whether the alleged offence, for which the petitioners are facing the inquiry, can be treated as ‘heinous offence’, within the purview of Section 2(33) of the Act of 2015?” It recorded that “in none of the above offences, the minimum sentence has been prescribed as 7 years.”
The judgment stated that “the sentence can be awarded to an accused, which may extend to 7 years or more, but in the instant case, in none of the offences, the minimum sentence is 7 years.”
The Court referred extensively to Shilpa Mittal and recited the Supreme Court’s reasoning, including: “the word ‘minimum’ cannot be treated as surplusage” and “an offence which does not provide a minimum sentence of 7 years cannot be treated to be a heinous offence.”
It further noted the Supreme Court’s declaration that “the Act does not deal with the 4th category of offences… [which] shall be treated as ‘serious offences’ within the meaning of the Act and dealt with accordingly till the Parliament takes the call on the matter.”
The Court stated that “there is no charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 376 IPC, where the minimum sentence is 07 years.” It recorded that “the only charge against the petitioners is ‘attempt to commit rape’… and half of the minimum sentence of 07 years… is prescribed for attempt to commit rape.”
It further observed that the two judgments cited by the State and complainant “are not applicable in the instant case and the same are not related to the issue involved.”
The Court summarised its reasoning by stating: “none of the alleged offences fall within the purview of ‘heinous offence’, as defined under Section 2(33) of the Act of 2015 because of the absence of minimum sentence of seven years or more.”
The Court held that “the impugned judgment dated 16.06.2025… is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board for conducting inquiry against the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law, adhering to the provisions contained under the Act of 2015. Both the criminal revision petitions stand allowed.” It recorded that “Stay applications and all pending applications (if any) stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka, Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Fateh Ram Meena
Case Title: A v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; K v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:42985
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1371/2025 (connected with 1217/2025)
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
