The Juvenile Justice Board on 10.01.2022 had rejected the application of the prosecution for taking cognizance under section 302 of I.P.C., since preliminary assessment of the revisionist was yet to be conducted. Thus, even the Juvenile Justice Board was clear that without a valid order of preliminary assessment, the revisionist could not be prosecuted in trial for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The order of taking cognizance under Section 302 of I.P.C. was itself improper. On careful scrutiny it transpires that two members of the Juvenile Justice Board were not in support of cognizance being taken under Section 302 of I.P.C. As per section 7(4) of the J.J. Act, the opinion of the majority members prevails. That being so, the order of preliminary assessment dated 19.01.2022 had also been passed with dissent of two members, holding that the revisionist could not be tried as adult. Appellate Court, misinterpreted the dissenting opinion and its endorsement by the other members of the Juvenile Justice Board is wrong. Instead of calling for a report from the Juvenile Justice Board, the Appellate Court proceeded and passed orders on conjectures/surmises.
