Stating that law is an evolving concept and has to keep pace with time, the Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal revision filed by a minor who had challenged the Juvenile Justice Board and Kaushambi Pocso court orders directing that he be tried as an adult in an alleged rape case involving a minor girl.
The court observed, “This court has no hesitation to hold that the nefarious effects of the visual mediums like television, internet, and social media on adolescents are not being controlled, nor it appears that the government can control the same, to prevent its deleterious effect on the adolescents, due to the uncontrollable nature of technologies involved. The ‘Nirbhaya case’ was an exception and not a general rule and all juveniles cannot be subjected and tried like adult without proper consideration of the overall social and psychological effects on their psyche.”
The criminal revision claimed that the impugned orders wrongly held the revisionist to be tried as an adult, and his assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board, as well as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) court, is not in accordance with the law.
The counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the case of both the assessment and medical reports, the experts held that the psychological assessment of the juvenile was suggestive of a mild deficit in intellectual functioning.
But the Board had relied upon the allegations made in the First Information Report and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by ignoring the clinical psychologist report and held that it was not bound by the reports submitted by the experts. The counsel argued that denying the expert report will frustrate the provisions of Section 15 (1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
The counsel for the State submitted that although the preliminary assessment report and the report of psychologist are in favour of the minor boy, the Board has recorded clear findings that the revisionist was able to understand the consequence of crime committed by him and, therefore, the Board was not bound to accept the report of the psychologist and held that the revisionist be tried as an adult.
“There is nothing on record to indicate that the revisionist is a predator on the prowl and is prone to repeating the offence without any provocation. He never indulged in any such or other offence earlier. Maturity of his mind has not been certified by the psychologist. Merely because he committed a heinous crime he cannot be put to par with an adult when his social exposure was also found to be deficient by the psychologist,” the high court stated in its order.
Story continues below this ad
“In view of above consideration, the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the courts below are set aside. Criminal Revision is allowed. The revisionist is directed to be tried as a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with law,” the court added.
