LAWS(HPH)-2025-7-54

V (A JUVENILE) Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On July 28, 2025
V (A Juvenile) Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is directed against the judgment dtd. 10/6/2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla (learned appellate Court), vide which the order passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Shimla was upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police presented a challan against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and Sec. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)Act. It was asserted that the victim was aged 7 years on the date of the incident. Victim's father went to see off his guests on 12/2/2021. The victim and her sister accompanied him. The victim told him that she was going to the house of the petitioner to play with him. She returned after some time. Victim's mother called her husband at about 2:30 pm and told him that the victim had pain in her stomach. Inquiries were made from the victim, and she disclosed that the petitioner took her to a cowshed and raped her. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The petitioner was found to be aged 16 years one month and 23 days at the time of the incident. Hence, the charge-sheet was filed before the JJB.

(3.) The JJB carried out the preliminary assessment as required under Sec. 15 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 (JJ Act). The petitioner was sent for examination by a Medical Board. The Medical Board carried out the assessment and found that the petitioner's IQ was 92 and he was able to understand the consequences of his acts. The Board also interacted with the petitioner and recorded the statement of the witnesses. The Board concluded that, as per the opinion of the Medical Board and the nature of the offence and social investigation report, there was nothing to suggest that the petitioner suffered from any mental or physical incapacity to commit the crime. The nature of the offence suggested that the petitioner knew the consequences of his act. The statement of the victim showed that the offence was committed in a calculated manner, and the petitioner had sufficient mental and physical capacity to commit the crime. Therefore, the matter was submitted to the Children's Court for trying the petitioner as an adult.