2026:CGHC:384 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on 15.10.2025 Order delivered on 05 th January, 2026 CRR No. 653 of 2023 Vishnu Rohra S/o Lt. Hasanand Rohra Aged About 37 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Pakki Kholi, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - ABC 3 - XYZ ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : Shri Harsh Varma, Advocate on behalf of Shri Rahul Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms Binu Sharma, PL For Respondent-3 : Ms Apurva Nigam, Advocate on behalf of Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent-2 : None appears though served ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal CAV Order 1. This Criminal Revision filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘Act of 2015’) by the applicant, who was complainant in the case, against the order dated 29.04.2023 passed by the learned Children's Court/ Additional Session Judge FSC (POCSO), Raigarh in CRA-36 of 2023, whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the applicant has been dismissed. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.01.05 18:22:38 +0530 Crr 653 of 2023 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is brother of the deceased, and complainant in the case. Allegation against the respondents- 2 and 3, who are juveniles in conflict with law, and other accused persons are that they committed marpit with the deceased Arjun on 27.09.2017, by which the deceased received grievous injuries, and died on the same day. FIR was registered and the juveniles along with other accused persons were taken into custody. Charge-sheet was filed against the juveniles in conflict with law before the Juvenile Justice Board, Raigarh, for the offence punishable under Sections147, 148, 149, 302, 294, 506, 452, 323, and 427 of the IPC. The juveniles in conflict with law were taken into custody on 28.09.2017, and they were sent to the Observation Home (Bal Samprekshan Grih). 3. On 08.05.2019, present applicant made an application under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 for determination of age of respondent-2 ABC. The said application was rejected by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Raigarh on 08.02.2023 on the ground that such assessment with regard to mental and physical capacity to commit offence, ability to understand the consequence of offence is to be conducted by the Board within a month from the date of production of the juvenile in conflict with law before the Board in case of heinous offence, alleged to have been committed by the juvenile in conflict with law. In the present case, charge-sheet was filed in the year 2017, and after such a long time, mental and physical capacity of the juvenile in conflict with law can not be determined as on that day. The said order dated 08.02.2023 was Crr 653 of 2023 3 challenged by the applicant before the learned Children's Court/ ASJ FSC (POCSO), Raigarh, in CRA- 36 of 2023, which was also dismissed vide its order dated 29.04.2023, and the same is under challenge in the present Criminal Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that learned Juvenile Justice Board ought to have made assessment about the mental and physical capacity of the juvenile in conflict with law to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence. The juvenile-ABC in the present case committed heinous offence along with other accused persons, and he was mentally, and physically capable to understand the consequence of the crime. The preliminary assessment of the juvenile in conflict with law is mandatory as provided under Section 15 of the Act of 2015, and the learned Juvenile Justice Board was required to pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub- Section 3 of Section 18 of the Act of 2015. 5. In the present case, there is no preliminary assessment made by the Juvenile Justice Board at the time when the juvenile was produced before it on 28.09.2017, and even after making application by the applicant under Section 15 of the Act of 2015, the learned Juvenile Justice Board, as well as the appellate Court, have not exercised their jurisdiction to order for preliminary assessment of the mental and physical capacity of the juvenile in conflict with law-ABC, and therefore, the entire trial may vitiate and by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Crr 653 of 2023 4 learned Juvenile Justice Board, as well as learned appellate Court, an order for preliminary assessment of the juvenile in conflict with law-ABC may be passed by allowing the present revision. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, and would submit that though there is mandatory provision under Section 15 of the Act of 2015, that as and when the juvenile would be produced before the Board, the Board shall make preliminary assessment with regard to the mental and physical capacity of the juvenile in conflict with law. However, after such a long time, i.e. after about 8 years, his mental and physical capacity on the date of incident cannot be determined now. Therefore, learned Juvenile Justice Board, and the learned Appellate Court have rightly dismissed the application, as well as the appeal filed by the present applicant, and there is no merit in the revision. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material annexed with the petition, record of the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate Court. 8. Claim of the applicant is that learned Juvenile Justice Board, Raigarh has not conducted any preliminary assessment with regard to mental, and physical capacity of the juvenile in conflict with law-ABC, to commit such offence, and as per Section 15 of the Act of 2015, the Board was required to conduct such preliminary assessment, which is Crr 653 of 2023 5 mandatory provision under the Act of 2015, and its noncompliance would prejudice the trial of the case, and the entire trial may vitiate. 9. In the aforesaid background of the case, it would be necessary to notice here the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 2015, which reads as under: “Section 15. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board— (1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18: Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequences of the alleged offence. (2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should be disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be appealable under sub-section (2) of section 101: Crr 653 of 2023 6 Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the period specified in section 14.” 10. The heinous offence under Section 2 (33) of the Act of 2015, which reads as under: “(33) “heinous offences” includes the offences for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal Code (45 of1860) or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years or more;” 11. It is to be noted that brother of the complainant/applicant was allegedly murdered by the juvenile in conflict with law, and other accused persons. The persons involved in the crime are facing trial of serious charge of murder. Nature of crime, and keeping in mind the definition of heinous offence provided above, it was the bounden duty of the Juvenile Justice Board under the act of 2015 to conduct preliminary enquiry, and assessment of the juvenile in conflict with law. 12. From perusal of record of the Juvenile Justice Board, it transpires that no preliminary assessment was conducted to assess the mental and physical capacity of the juvenile in conflict with law- ABC. The applicant has made application before the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 to conduct the preliminary assessment of the juvenile in conflict with law-ABC. The timeline has also been prescribed under the Act of 2015 for conducting such preliminary assessment, and as per the 2nd proviso of Section 15(2) of the Act of 2015, the preliminary assessment in case of heinous offence under Section 15 shall be Crr 653 of 2023 7 disposed of by the Board within a period of three months from the date of 1st projection of the juvenile before the Board. 13. It is to be noted that in the process of this preliminary assessment, the Juvenile Justice board, on its own, in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Act of 2015, or on the application of the complainant, or informant, is required to ensure the effective and meaningful participation of the child. The Board has to follow the general principles laid down under Section 3 of the Act of 2015 for proper administration of the Act. The enquiry conducted under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 must display the adherence to the basic procedural standards of the fairness. The child in this process, is required to be given fair, and unbiased hearing. The Juvenile Justice Board is required to act strictly in accordance with provisions of the Act of 2015, ensure transparency, and fairness in the proceeding. The proceeding before the Board does not indicate about assured active participation of the Board in the enquiry proceeding. 14. The trial of the child below 18 years of age before the Board is a rule, and the trial of the child above 16 years of age before the regular Court, as an adult, is an exception. The exceptional circumstances must exist, and must be proved within the parameters of Section 15 of the Act of 2015 to try a child/juvenile, as an adult, in case of heinous offences, 15. In this case, the Board has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act of 2015, or the Rules under the Act. Crr 653 of 2023 8 16. In the matter of Barun Chandra Thakur Vs master Bholu and another (2023) 12 SCC 401, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act of 2015, and framed the guidance note on such reports developed by the department of Child and Adolescent Psychology, and in paragraphs- 85 to 89 of its judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded thus: “CONCLUSION 85. We are conscious of the fact that the power to make the preliminary assessment is vested in the Board and also the Children’s Court under sections 15 and 19 respectively. The Children’s Court, on its own, upon a matter being referred to under section 18(3), would still examine whether the child is to be tried as an adult or not, and if it would come to the conclusion that the child was not to be tried as an adult then it would itself conduct an inquiry as a Board and pass appropriate orders under section 18. Thus, the power to carry out the preliminary assessment rests with the Board and the Children’s Court. This Court cannot delve upon the exercise of preliminary assessment. This Court will only examine as to whether the preliminary assessment has been carried out as required under law or not. Even the High Court, exercising revisionary power under section 102, would test the decision of the Board or the Children’s Court with respect to its legality or propriety only. In the present case, the High Court has, after considering limited material on record, arrived at a conclusion that the matter required reconsideration and for which, it has remanded the matter to the Board with further directions to take additional evidence and also to afford adequate opportunity to the child before taking a fresh decision. Crr 653 of 2023 9 86. In arriving at the conclusion, the High Court firstly held that there was denial of adequate opportunity to the respondent. The list of documents, copies of the documents, copies of the statement, the SIR not being provided to the respondent, was in clear violation of rule 10(5) of the Model Rules. 87. Despite specific request for cross-examining the experts who had given the report, the same was not provided to the respondent. The tests conducted by the expert psychologists were not applicable or could not have been applied to a child above the age of 15 years. It could have been applied only for children below the age of up to 15 years in one test and up to 11.5 years in the other test. The psychologist had suggested for further assessment by a superior facility, which was not accepted by the Board without cogent reason. 88. The mental age as per the applicable formula based on the IQ of the child would be less than 16 years. The Board, provided only 30 minutes time to the child, his lawyer, his father and also to the counsel for CBI to peruse the 35 pages of the report, which was too little to peruse and comprehend and give any evidence in rebuttal. The CBI counsel had admitted that it did not have officers or the required infrastructure to conduct the investigation under the Act, 2015. For all the above reasons, the High Court remitted the matter to the Board after setting aside both the orders of the Board and the Children’s Court to consider afresh and assess the intelligence, maturity, physical fitness and as to how the child in conflict with law was in a position to know the consequences of the offence. The exercise was to be undertaken within a period of six weeks. The High Court further directed that while conducting the preliminary assessment afresh, Crr 653 of 2023 10 opinion of the psychologist of the Government Hospital (Institute of Mental Health, University of Health Sciences, Rohtak) be obtained. This Court may not agree with the reasoning given by the High Court on all counts and also the direction given for conducting further tests. However, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the ultimate result of the High Court in remanding the matter for a fresh consideration after rectifying the errors on lack of adequate opportunity. 89. The High court taking into consideration all these aspects set aside the order of the Board, and remanded the matter and also directed for getting further examination of the child, and this exercise was to be undertaken within 6 weeks. Today, after 3½ years, we are not in a position to give an opinion as to whether any further test can be carried out at this stage as the age of the child is now more than 21 years. However, we leave it to the discretion of the Board or the psychologist who may be consulted as to whether any fresh examination would be of any relevance/assistance or not. We have already referred to in detail the kind of analysis or assessment required to be made under section 15. The Act, 2015 or the Model Rules do not lay down any guidelines or framework to facilitate the Board in making a proper preliminary assessment on the relevant aspects. The only liberty given to the Board is to obtain assistance of an experienced psychologist or a psycho social worker or other expert. In the present case, the only assistance taken is to get the mental IQ of the child. Beyond that, regarding the ability to understand the consequences and also the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed, no report was called for from any psychologist.” Crr 653 of 2023 11 17. It is also an important aspect that whether the enquiry and preliminary assessment conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board to pass final order under Section 18(iii) of the Act of 2015 to try the juvenile in conflict with law, as an adult is sustainable in law. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that at the time of alleged incident, the juvenile in conflict with law was less than 18 years of age, and as per the requirement of Section 15 of the act of 2015, preliminary enquiry ought to have been conducted. However, he was arrested on 28.09.2017, and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Raigarh. 18. There was no preliminary enquiry conducted on that day by the Juvenile Justice Board. On 08.05.2019, an application under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 was filed by the petitioner for conducting preliminary enquiry as required under the Act, and the said application was decided on 08.02.2023 by the learned Board, holding that the charge-sheet against the Juvenile in conflict with law was filed in the year 2017, and after lapse of long time, his mental status, as well as IQ on that day cannot be ascertained at present, and therefore, the application was rejected, and the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. 19. While considering the case of Barun Chandra (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the requirement of preliminary assessment report of the Juvenile in conflict with law, and directed the Board for getting further examination of the juvenile, and further, it was left to the discretion of the Board, or the psychologist, who may be Crr 653 of 2023 12 consulted as to whether any fresh examination would be of any relevance/ assistance, or not. 20. It is to be noted that in the process of the preliminary assessment, the Board on its own, in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Act of 2015, or on the application of the victim, or the complainant, is required to ensure an affective and meaningful participation of the juvenile. The Board has to follow the general principles laid down under Section 3 of the Act of 2015 for proper administration of the Act. The enquiry conducted under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 must display the adherence to the basic procedural standards of fairness. 21. In the present case, the Board did not conduct any enquiry and preliminary assessment. The trial of the child below 18 years of age before the Board is a rule, and trial of the child above 16 years of age before the regular Court, as an adult, is an exception. The exceptional circumstances must exist, and must be proved within the parameters of Section 15 of the Act of 2015, and to try the child as an adult in case of heinous offenses. 22. In the present case, the Board has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act of 2015, and the Rules made thereunder. The Order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dated 08.02.2023, and the order passed in appeal dated 29.04.2023 have caused prejudice not only to the juvenile, but also to the victim, and the complainant. The orders are, therefore, required to be quashed, and set aside. Crr 653 of 2023 13 23. In the backdrop of above stated nature of the crime, committed in the case, the application made by the complainant to try the juvenile in conflict with law, as an adult, and to call the preliminary examination report under Section 15 of the Act of 2015, is required to be taken to a logical conclusion by strictly allowing the procedure laid down under the Act of 2015, and the Rules made thereunder, therefore, this Court is of the view that the orders passed by the Board as well as the Appellate Court are required to be set aside, and the matter is required to be remitted back to the Board for fresh enquiry, and the preliminary assessment in terms of Section 15 of the Act of 2015. 24. Accordingly, order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, and order dated 29.04.2023, passed by the learned Children's Court/Additional Sessions Judge, FSC (POCSO), Raigarh, in CRA-36 of 2023 are set aside. The application filed by the complainant under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 is restored, and the Board is directed to decide the application afresh under the provisions of the Act of 2015, as well as aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 25. The Juvenile Justice Board would be at liberty to call any other report as required, and permitted under the Act of 2015 for completion of preliminary assessment. The Board shall ensure actual, and affective Crr 653 of 2023 14 participation of the juvenile in conflict with law in the course of enquiry, and the said enquiry be conducted in fair manner. 26. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is allowed. 27. The record of Juvenile Justice Board, Raigarh be immediately sent back along with copy of this order for it’s compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma Crr 653 of 2023 15 Head Note Preliminary assessment of Juvenile in conflict with law is mandatory under Section 15of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as and when he produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, to examine whether the child is to be tried as an adult, or not.