KETAN SHARAD BADULE v. STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS GONDIA CITY GONDIA
Preliminary Assessment of CCLs: High Court Upholds Remand for Fresh Assessment Ensuring Consideration of Reports and Opportunity for Cross-Examination.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:4891
Decision Date: 07-05-2025
List of Laws
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Principles of Natural Justice
- Facts: A Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) was accused of a heinous offence (murder). The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) initially determined the CCL should be tried as an adult. The CCL appealed, and the District Judge remanded the matter back to the JJB for a fresh preliminary assessment, directing consideration of all relevant reports, including the Social Investigation Report (SIR) and Psychiatric Report, and providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The CCL then filed a revision application challenging the remand order, arguing the Psychiatric Report was inadequate and the remand was delayed.
- Procedural Posture: This case is a Criminal Revision Application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order of the District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, who partly allowed the CCL's appeal and remanded the matter back to the JJB for a fresh preliminary assessment.
- Issue: Did the Appellate Court err in remanding the matter back to the JJB for a fresh preliminary assessment of the CCL, and was the preliminary assessment conducted by the JJB flawed due to inadequate consideration of relevant reports and denial of the opportunity for cross-examination?
- Holding: No, the Appellate Court did not err in remanding the matter. The High Court dismissed the revision application, finding no illegality in the Appellate Court's order.
- Reasoning: The High Court reasoned that the preliminary assessment should consist of mental and psychological capacity to commit such offence and ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence. The JJB's initial order did not adequately consider the SIR and Psychiatric Report, nor did it provide the CCL with an opportunity for cross-examination. The High Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair hearing for the CCL. The court noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Barun Chandra Thakur supra held that a CCL is entitled to all relevant documents including SIR and Psychiatric Report. The High Court also relied on Thirumoorthy vs. State supra, which emphasized conducting proceedings in accordance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Juvenile Justice Act. The High Court concluded that the Appellate Court rightly directed a fresh assessment, even though the CCL was now over 21, leaving it to the JJB's discretion to determine the relevance of any fresh examination.
🔒 For Members Only