Allahabad High Court
Prince Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 October, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176145
Reserved On:- 17.09.2025
Delivered On:- 06.10.2025
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3935 of 2024
Revisionist :- Prince Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Raj Kumar Yadav,Salil Krishna
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Mayank Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.2; learned A.G.A for State-respondents and perused the material on record.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.5.2024 passed by the Children's Court/Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2024 as well as the judgment and order dated 19.1.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaunpur in Case No. 49 of 2023 under sections 323,352,324,504,506,307,302,34 I.P.C., P.S. Saraykhwaja District Jaunpur.
3. After determination of age of the revisionist as 17 years, 5 months and 13 days .His preliminary assessment was conducted as per section 15 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. His preliminary assessment was made on the basis of question put up by the members of the Board and its reply given by the revisionist. On the basis of same Board came to the conclusion that revisionist was capable of understand the consequences of heinous offence committed by him and he was physically and mentally capable of understand the consequence of his act.
4. It is clear from the order dated 19.12024 passed by the J.J. Board, Jaunpur no help of Psychologist, Physo-social worker or expert was taken in making preliminary assessment of the revisionist as mandate in section 15 of Act aforesaid. No D.P.O. report and report of social welfare officer was called, hence the order is against the mandate of the Act and the judgment of Apex court in the Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Bhlou reported in 2022(0) (Supreme) 568.
5. In Barun Chandra Thakur (supra) the Apex Court has held that appropriate and specific guidelines with regard to preliminary assessment under Section 15 of J.J. Act, 2015 are not there and had left it open for the Central Government and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to consider issuing guidelines or directions in this regard which may assist and facilitate the Board in making the preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act, 2015, but as yet nothing has been done.
6. The issue of preliminary assessments of juvenile under Section 15 of J.J. Act is a delicate and difficult task, which requires expertise. As of now, it is being done in arbitrary manner in absence of any definite parameters/ guidelines for the same. Therefore this Court deems it appropriate to formulate some guidelines for the Juvenile Justice Board and Children's Court to guide them in making preliminary assessment of juveniles for the purpose of the trial regarding commission of heinous offence as per Section 15 of J.J. Act, 2015, till the legislature formulates appropriate guidelines, as follows:-
GUIDELINES
COMPLIANCE
(i) The Board will necessarily call the report of psychologist regarding the test of intelligence of child conducted regarding his ability to understand the consequences of his act [like Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence (B.K.T.); Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS); Bhatiya Battery Test of Intelligence or any other test]. The psychologist will indicate in his report clearly what test was performed for assessing mental ability and intelligence of the child so as to ascertain whether he is required to be tried as an adult, who has committed heinous offence. The E.Q. and I.Q. of such a child shall also be clearly indicated in the report of psychologist;
(ii) Clear finding shall be recorded regarding the child's physical and mental capability to commit heinous crime alleged and his ability to understand its consequences;
(iii) The Board shall direct the Probation Officer, or in case a Probation Officer is not available, the Child Welfare Officer or a social worker, to undertake social investigation into the case and submit a social investigation report, within a period of fifteen days from the date of first production of child before the Board [section 8(3)(e)];
(iv) Child Welfare Police Officer of the police station, or the special juvenile police unit to which such child is brought, shall, as soon as possible after apprehending the child, inform the probation officer, or if no probation officer is available, a Child Welfare Officer, for preparation and submission within two weeks to the Board, a social investigation report containing information regarding the antecedents and family background of the child and other material circumstances wherein the child committed the alleged offence likely to be of assistance to the Board for making the inquiry [Section 13(1)(ii)];
(v) In cases of heinous offences alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed the age of sixteen years, the Child Welfare Police Officer shall produce the statement of witnesses recorded by him and other documents prepared during the course of investigation within a period of one month from the date of first production of the child before the Board, a copy of which shall also be given to the child or parent or guardian of the child [Rule 10(5);
(vi) The number and nature of the previous implications of the child with details of names of complaint/complaints;
(vii) The number and nature of prior period of probation of child, prior commitments of child to child correctional centers and previous residential and community - based treatments;
(viii) Whether the alleged offense is part of a repetitive pattern of similar adjudicated offenses committed by child and whether implications have been made by same complainant;
(ix) Whether the child has previously absconded from the legal custody of a juvenile correctional center;
(x) The degree of intellectual disability or mental illness of child, if any;
(xi) The child's school record and education;
7. For the reasons given hereinabove, the impugned orders passed by the J.J. Board and the Children's Court are not in accordance with law, hence, the preliminary assessment of the present child in conflict with law requires assessment afresh by J.J. Board within two months as contemplated under section 15(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015. The assessment of child (revisionist) shall be done on all the parameters/ guidelines stated hereinabove, since the Apex Court in the case of Child in Conflict with Law through his Mother Vs. State of Karnatka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 798 has held that period of three months provided under Section 14 (3) of the Act for the purpose of conducting psychological test of the child is not mandatory.
8. The order dated 23.5.2024 passed by the Children's Court /Additional District and Session Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jaunpur as well as the judgment and order dated 19.1.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaunpur passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra are quashed and set aside.
9. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed.
Order Date :- 06.10.2025
Atul Kr. Sri.
