Kiran Raj

The Tripura High Court has quashed an order by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) that classified a 17-year-old accused as an adult for trial under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court ruled that the decision was made without providing the accused with a reasonable opportunity to access and challenge the assessment reports, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The matter has been remanded to the JJB for fresh consideration.

The case originated from an FIR registered at Bodhjungnagar Police Station on June 18, 2019, alleging that on June 16, 2019, the petitioner, identified as a child in conflict with law (CCL), forcibly kidnapped a 17-year-old girl and took her to a guest house in Ambassa, where he allegedly committed rape. The charge sheet was filed on February 29, 2020, under Sections 366A and 376 of the IPC, as well as Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Upon receiving the charge sheet, the JJB sought a Preliminary Assessment Report from the Clinical Psychologist at Modern Psychiatric Hospital, Narsingarh. The report, received on March 17, 2021, was used as the basis for the JJB's order on April 1, 2021, directing that the petitioner be tried as an adult before the Children's Court.

Challenging this decision, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on February 2, 2024, upholding the JJB’s findings. The petitioner then approached the Tripura High Court under Section 102 of the Act read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The High Court examined whether the JJB and the appellate court followed due process in classifying the petitioner as an adult for trial. The petitioner argued that he had been denied access to the Preliminary Assessment Report and the Social Investigation Report, violating Section 99 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

The court cited Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu and Another, (2023) 12 SCC 401, where the Supreme Court held that while confidentiality must be maintained, the accused, his parents, or his legal representatives cannot be denied access to assessment reports. The High Court noted:

"While maintaining confidentiality has a different purpose, in no case can it be said that to maintain confidentiality, the relevant material would not be provided to the child or his guardian or parents. It would be in complete contravention of the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence."

Additionally, the court found that the JJB’s assessment did not properly evaluate the three criteria under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act—mental and physical capacity to commit the offense, ability to understand its consequences, and circumstances in which it was allegedly committed. The ruling stated: "Neither the Preliminary Assessment Report nor the Social Investigation Report was communicated to the child or his parent or guardian before the JJB rendered its decision. This amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and denial of a reasonable opportunity to the accused to challenge the findings."

The court also stated that under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, even if a case is transferred to the Children's Court, the latter retains the authority to determine whether the child should be tried as an adult.

Based on these findings, the High Court set aside both the JJB’s order dated April 1, 2021, and the appellate court's order dated February 2, 2024. The matter was remitted to the JJB with the following directives:

1. Fresh Preliminary Assessment – The JJB must reassess the petitioner’s mental and physical capacity to commit the offense, his ability to understand its consequences, and the circumstances of the alleged crime.

2. Access to Reports – The JJB must ensure that the petitioner, his legal representatives, and guardians are provided access to the Preliminary Assessment Report and Social Investigation Report.

3. Timeframe for Decision – The JJB is directed to complete the fresh assessment and issue a revised order within two months.

4. Compliance with Legal Precedents – The JJB must consider principles established in Supreme Court judgments, including Barun Chandra Thakur, while reassessing the case.

Case Title: X v. The State of Tripura
Case Number: Crl.Rev.P. No. 16/2024
Bench: Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

[Read/Download order]