The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a conviction under the POCSO Act and IPC against a juvenile, holding that failure to serve the psychologist report and conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, renders the entire trial void. This judgment reinforces that procedural compliance in juvenile justice is not discretionary but a constitutional imperative.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, a child in conflict with law (CCL), was accused of committing heinous offences including rape under Section 376(2) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act on 12.11.2016. At the time of the offence, he was approximately 16 years, 9 months and 10 days old, placing him within the age bracket of 16 - 18 years under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The case was initially processed by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15(1) and transferred the matter to the Children’s Court for trial as an adult.
Procedural History
- 12.11.2016: Alleged offence committed.
- 07.04.2017: JJB ordered a psychologist report to assess the CCL’s mental capacity and understanding of consequences.
- 02.05.2017: Psychologist report received by JJB; same day, JJB passed order under Section 18(3) transferring the case to the Children’s Court without serving the report to the CCL, his guardian, or counsel.
- 16.05.2017: Children’s Court received the case.
- 04.07.2017: Charges framed under IPC and POCSO Act without conducting any independent inquiry under Section 19(1).
- 25.05.2019: Children’s Court convicted and sentenced the CCL to 10 years imprisonment.
- 2019: Appeal filed before the High Court under Section 374(2) CrPC.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the conviction and sentence on grounds of procedural violations under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and its Rules, arguing that the failure to afford a fair opportunity to respond to the psychologist report and the absence of a mandatory inquiry under Section 19(1) rendered the trial illegal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the failure to serve the psychologist report to the juvenile and his representatives, and the absence of a mandatory inquiry under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, vitiates the entire trial and warrants acquittal.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel relied on Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu and Ajeet Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh to argue that the procedures under Sections 15 and 19 are mandatory, not directory. The psychologist report, being a critical document affecting the decision to try the child as an adult, must be served to ensure a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Children’s Court’s reliance on the JJB’s preliminary assessment without conducting its own inquiry under Section 19(1) was a fatal flaw. Rule 10(5), 10(9), and Rule 13(1), (6) were also violated.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the JJB had duly conducted the preliminary assessment and the Children’s Court had acted within its powers by relying on the transfer order under Section 18(3). It argued that the trial was procedurally sound and that the conviction should be upheld as the nature of the offence was heinous and the age of the accused was established by documentary evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the Supreme Court’s binding precedents. It held that the expression "may" in Sections 15(1) and 19(1) operates as "shall" due to the severe civil consequences of trying a child as an adult, including potential life imprisonment and lifelong disqualifications under Section 24.
"These consequences are serious in nature and have a lasting effect for the entire life of the child. It is well settled that any order that has serious civil consequences, reasonable opportunity must be afforded."
The Court emphasized that the psychologist report is not merely an administrative formality but a foundational document for determining the child’s mental capacity. Its non-disclosure violated the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing under Article 21. Further, the Children’s Court’s failure to independently evaluate under Section 19(1) rendered its order a mere rubber-stamp of the JJB’s preliminary assessment, which the Supreme Court in Ajeet Gurjar explicitly held to be impermissible.
The Court also noted that the violation was not curable by remand, as the appellant was now nearly 26 years old, making retrospective psychological evaluation impossible. The entire chain of proceedings - from the JJB’s non-compliance to the Children’s Court’s mechanical adoption of the preliminary assessment - was therefore vitiated.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Court held that the failure to serve the psychologist report and the absence of a mandatory inquiry under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, vitiated the trial. The conviction and sentence were quashed. The appellant, already on bail, need not surrender, but his bail bond shall remain operative for six months under Section 437-A CrPC.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Preliminary Assessment Cannot Be Mechanical
- Practitioners must challenge any transfer order under Section 18(3) where the psychologist report was not served to the juvenile or his counsel.
- Courts must independently verify compliance with Rule 10(5) and 10(9) before accepting JJB’s transfer order.
- A copy of the psychologist report must be part of the record and disclosed to the defence at the earliest stage.
Section 19(1) Inquiry Is Non-Optional
- The Children’s Court cannot rely solely on the JJB’s preliminary assessment; it must conduct its own inquiry under Section 19(1).
- The Court must record specific reasons for concluding whether trial as an adult is necessary, per Rule 13(6).
- Failure to do so renders the trial void ab initio, regardless of the gravity of the offence.
Retrospective Evaluation Is Not a Remedy
- Once the child attains majority, the inability to conduct a retrospective psychological assessment does not validate prior procedural lapses.
- Courts must prioritize procedural compliance over punitive outcomes in juvenile cases.
- Any conviction based on non-compliant procedures must be set aside, even if the accused is now an adult.
