Dismissed¶20

X- Juvenile v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2025CRLR/918/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Juvenile in conflict with law; preliminary assessment under Section 15 JJ Act 2015; trial as adult under Section 18(3); mental capacity assessed at 55 (below average) by psychologist; forceful rape of 11-12 year old girl; Sections 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act; Case Crime No. 160 of 2019; Juvenile Justice Board Ghazipur; Children's Court Ghazipur Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2021; earlier order dated 20.09.2021 set aside in Criminal Revision No. 3000 of 2021; Parag Bhati v. State of U.P. (2016 SCC OnLine SC 366) on misuse of benevolent JJ Act provisions in heinous offences; Allahabad High Court Criminal Revision No. 918 of 2024 dismissed by Siddharth, J.; delivered 08.09.2025 (reserved 25.08.2025).

What did the court decide?

No illegality was found in the findings recorded by the Appellate Court directing the revisionist's trial as an adult.

X- Juvenile vs State of Up and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Children's Court / Appellate Court correctly confirmed the direction for the revisionist's trial as an adult under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act, 2015, notwithstanding his below-average intelligence (mental capacity 55).

¶12

Court's answer

No illegality was found in the findings recorded by the Appellate Court directing the revisionist's trial as an adult.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Merely because the revisionist's intelligence was below average, it cannot be said that he was not physically and mentally capable of committing the alleged offence, nor that he was unaware of the consequences of his act.

¶12

Key takeaways

The matter was one of forceful rape of a minor girl in which there was no element of consent in law involved.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Siddharth, J.) dismissed a criminal revision by a juvenile ('X') against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2024 of the Additional District Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Children's Court, Ghazipur in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2021, whereby the Appellate Court again sustained the direction for his trial as an adult under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in Case Crime No. 160 of 2019 under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. The Juvenile Justice Board had declared him a juvenile above 16 years and a psychologist assessed his mental capacity at 55 (below average), while finding him otherwise fit and capable of understanding the consequences of his acts. The High Court held that mere below-average intelligence did not establish incapacity or ignorance of consequences in a case of forceful rape of an 11-12 year old girl involving no element of consent in law, following Parag Bhati v. State of U.P., 2016 SCC OnLine SC 366, on the non-misuse of the JJ Act's benevolent provisions in heinous crimes. The criminal revision was dismissed and the order of the court below affirmed; the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate a copy of the order to the Appellate Court within one week, and the lower court record was directed to be sent back to the trial court within one week.

¶1

Reserved On:- 25.08.2025 Delivered On:- 08.09.2025

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 918 of 2024

¶3

X- Juvenile	.....Revisionist(s)
	Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, Vinod Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 47

¶4

HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for revisionist; learned AGA for State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Children's Court Ghazipur in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2021 and order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur whereby the trial court has referred the matter for adult trial of revisionist as adult in Case Crime No. 160 of 2019, under Sections- 376 IPC and Section ¾ of POCSO Act.

¶7

The Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur, by its order dated 17.01.2020, declared the revisionist to be a Juvenile and, upon finding his age to be above 16 years, directed his preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Pursuant thereto, a report was obtained from a psychologist, wherein his mental capacity was assessed at 55, i.e., below average. In other respects, however, he was found to be fit and capable of understanding the consequences of his acts, and accordingly, he was directed to be tried as an adult in terms of Section 18(3) of the Act. The aforesaid order was thereafter challenged before the Children's Court / Appellate

CRLR No. 918 of 2024

Court.

The Appellate Court has earlier decided the issue against the revisionist by the order dated 20.09.2021 which was subjected to challenge before this court vide Criminal Revision No. 3000 of 2021 and after setting aside the earlier order dated 20.09.2021 this court directed the Appellate Court to decide the issue again. The Appellate Court has considered the issue again and has found that although the intelligence of Juvenile was below average but he has committed forceful rape of 11-12 years old girl. In his examination by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur, his behaviour was found to be normal. He was physically and mentally found to be healthy and capable of understanding the consequences of his act. Hence, the Appellate Court has again decided the issue against the revisionist.

¶12

This court does not finds any illegality in the findings recorded by the Appellate Court. Merely on the ground that the intelligence of revisionist was below average, it cannot be said that he was not physically and mentally capable of committing the alleged offence nor it can be said that he was not aware of the consequences of the act done by him. It is a case of forceful rape of a minor girl and there is no element of consent in law involved.

¶13

The Apex Court in the case of Parag Bhati (Juvenile) through Legal Guardian – Mother- Smt. Rajni Bhati vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 366 , has held that the benevolent provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, cannot be allowed to be misused where heinous crime is committed by an accused in paragraph nos. 26 and 27 are as follows :-

¶14

" (26) It is no doubt true that if there is a clear and unambiguous case in favour of the juvenile accused that he was a minor below the age of 18 years on the date of the incident and the documentary evidence at least prima facie proves the same, he would be entitled to the special protection under the JJ Act. But when an accused commits a grave and heinous offence and thereafter attempts to take statutory shelter under the guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording as to whether an accused is a juvenile or not cannot be permitted as the courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of protecting the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice.

¶15

(27) The benefit of the principle of benevolent legislation attached to the JJ Act would thus apply to only such cases wherein the accused is

¶16

CRLR No. 918 of 2024

¶17

¶18

held to be a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence regarding his minority as the benefit of the possibilities of two views in regard to the age of the alleged accused who is involved in grave and serious offence which he committed and gave effect to it in a wellplanned manner reflecting his maturity of mind rather than innocence indicating that his plea of juvenility is more in the nature of a shield to dodge or dupe the arms of law, cannot be allowed to come to his rescue."

¶19

In view of the aforesaid consideration, the order passed by the Revisional Court is hereby affirmed.

¶20

Accordingly, the criminal revision stands dismissed .

¶21

The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Appellate Court within period of one week.

¶22

Let the lower court record be sent back to the trial court within a period of one week also.

¶23

September 8, 2025 Rohit

¶24

(Siddharth,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order dated 10.01.2024 in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2021 deciding the issue against the revisionist and sustaining his trial as an adult in Case Crime No. 160 of 2019 under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.¶6
Additional District Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Children's Court, Ghazipur · 10.01.2024
Prior proceeding
Order dated 12.08.2021 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur whereby the trial court referred the matter for adult trial of the revisionist in Case Crime No. 160 of 2019 (date as printed; cf. 17.01.2020 order below).¶6
Prior proceeding
By order dated 17.01.2020 the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur declared the revisionist a juvenile, found his age above 16 years, and directed preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.¶7
Prior proceeding
Psychologist's report assessed the revisionist's mental capacity at 55 (below average); in other respects he was found fit and capable of understanding the consequences of his acts.¶7
Prior proceeding
The revisionist was directed to be tried as an adult in terms of Section 18(3) of the JJ Act, 2015; that order was thereafter challenged before the Children's Court / Appellate Court.¶7
Prior proceeding
The Appellate Court earlier decided the issue against the revisionist by order dated 20.09.2021, which was challenged before the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 3000 of 2021.¶11
Prior proceeding
The High Court set aside the earlier order dated 20.09.2021 and directed the Appellate Court to decide the issue again.¶11
Prior proceeding
On reconsideration the Appellate Court again decided against the revisionist, noting the juvenile's below-average intelligence but that he committed forceful rape of an 11-12 year old girl; his behaviour was normal and he was physically and mentally healthy and capable of understanding the consequences of his act.¶11

X- Juvenile v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X- Juvenile v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. & Another

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X vs State of Up and 3 Others

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santram vs State of U.P. and 3 Others