Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) [India] August 9 : The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a juvenile offender challenging the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the Sessions Judge to try him as an adult for a heinous offence of raping a seven-year-old girl, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while pronouncing the order, upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, observing, "The conduct of the petitioner -- committing repeated rape, cleaning the blood, and threatening the victim -- shows he was aware of the consequences of his act. He wanted to conceal the commission of the act, which is why he had cleaned the blood and threatened the victim," the court said.
The case involves a juvenile, identified as 'V', who was 16 years, one month, and 23 days old at the time of the incident on February 12, 2021. According to the prosecution, the victim's father had left home to see off guests while the child went to play with the petitioner. She returned complaining of stomach pain and later revealed that the petitioner had taken her to a cowshed and raped her.
The police registered a case under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The JJB conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and referred the matter to a Medical Board. The Board found the petitioner's IQ to be 92, indicating average intelligence, and concluded that he had the mental capacity to understand the consequences of his actions.
The JJB also considered the nature of the offence, the victim's detailed statement indicating repeated sexual assault and threats, and a social investigation report showing that the petitioner was raised in a healthy environment with no mental illness or parental neglect. It concluded that the crime was committed in a calculated manner, demonstrating sufficient mental and physical capacity, and referred the matter to the Children's Court for trial as an adult.
The Sessions Judge, Shimla, dismissed the petitioner's appeal, affirming the JJB's findings.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner, Harish Sharma, argued that the preliminary assessment was not completed within the mandatory three-month period under Section 14(3) of the JJ Act. He also contended that the Medical Board did not receive case documents and had assessed only mental capacity, not physical capacity.
Deputy Advocate General Ajit Sharma countered that the three-month period is directory, not mandatory, and that the evidence supported the lower courts' conclusions on both mental and physical capacity.
Justice Kainthla, referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in X (Juvenile) v. State of Karnataka, held that the time limit under Section 14(3) for completing a preliminary assessment is not mandatory:
"The provision prescribing a time limit for completion of the inquiry cannot be held to be mandatory... The intention of the legislature with reference to serious or heinous offences is also available from the language of Section 14 of the Act," the judge observed.
The court also upheld the JJB's reliance on the Medical Board report, the medical certificate, and the victim's testimony, holding that these were "relevant considerations to determine the physical and mental status of the petitioner."
Finding "no infirmity in the judgments passed by the learned courts below," the High Court dismissed the revision petition, clearing the way for the petitioner's trial as an adult.
The court clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the revision petition and would have no bearing on the merits of the trial.