HP High Court Upholds Trial of Juvenile as Adult in 2021 Minor Rape Case

High Court Dismisses Juvenile's Revision Petition

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 in a heinous offence involving the rape of a seven-year-old girl. The trial will proceed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, delivering the verdict, upheld the findings of the lower courts, noting the accused’s deliberate actions and awareness of the consequences. The court highlighted that the juvenile committed repeated sexual assaults, cleaned the blood to destroy evidence, and threatened the victim to remain silent, showing an intent to conceal the crime.

---

Incident Details

The case concerns a juvenile, referred to as 'V', who was 16 years, one month, and 23 days old at the time of the incident on February 12, 2021. As per the prosecution, the victim’s father had gone to see off guests when the child went to play with the petitioner. She later returned home with stomach pain and disclosed that she had been taken to a cowshed, where she was raped.

Following the complaint, the police registered a case under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

---

Juvenile Justice Board’s Preliminary Assessment

Under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the JJB conducted a preliminary assessment and referred the case to a Medical Board. The Board found the petitioner’s IQ to be 92, categorizing it as average intelligence, and concluded that he had the mental capacity to understand the consequences of his actions.

The JJB also reviewed the victim’s detailed statement, which indicated repeated sexual assaults and threats. A social investigation report revealed that the juvenile came from a healthy environment, with no history of mental illness or parental neglect. These findings led the JJB to conclude that the offence was committed in a calculated manner, demonstrating both mental and physical capacity to commit the crime. Consequently, the case was referred to the Children’s Court for trial as an adult.

---

Sessions Judge and High Court Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, Shimla, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and upheld the JJB’s findings.

Before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel, Harish Sharma, argued that the preliminary assessment exceeded the mandatory three-month time limit under Section 14(3) of the JJ Act. He further contended that the Medical Board was not provided case documents and had assessed only mental, not physical, capacity.

Deputy Advocate General Ajit Sharma countered that the three-month limit was directory rather than mandatory, and that the evidence supported the lower courts’ conclusions on both mental and physical capacity.

---

High Court’s Ruling and Legal Precedent

Justice Kainthla referred to the Supreme Court ruling in X (Juvenile) v. State of Karnataka, which clarified that the time limit under Section 14(3) of the JJ Act is not mandatory. He stated:

“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 court upheld the JJB’s reliance on the Medical Board’s report, the medical certificate, and the victim’s testimony, determining these as relevant factors in assessing the petitioner’s mental and physical status.

Finding no error in the decisions of the lower courts, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, paving the way for the petitioner to face trial as an adult. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the disposal of the revision petition and would not affect the merits of the trial itself.

---