Dismissed¶23

Sahil Sharma @ Sahil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC24 Jul 2025CR. REV./300/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2024; decided 24-07-2025; Bibek Chaudhuri J; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015; Section 102 revision; Section 15 preliminary assessment; heinous offence; CiCL aged 16 years 4 months; mental ability not at par with age; Sections 302/201/34 IPC; Children's Court; Additional District Judge XII Saran at Chapra; Criminal Juvenile Appeal No. 29/2022; Juvenile Justice Board Saran at Chapra; informant's appeal allowed; case remitted to Board; trial commenced; charges framed; five witnesses examined; infructuous; murder of Children's Home guard; follower of Ravana; dismissed on contest; no costs; PS Case No. 72 of 2022; P.S. Kopa; District Saran; Bihar.

What did the court decide?

No relief; revision dismissed on contest with no order as to costs. ¶23

Sahil Sharma @ Sahil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; revision dismissed on contest with no order as to costs.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate court/Children's Court validly allowed the informant's appeal and remitted the case to the Juvenile Justice Board without making its own preliminary assessment of the heinous offence under Section 15 JJ Act and without taking assistance of experienced psychologists and medical specialists beyond those whose assistance was obtained by the Board. +1 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Since the trial of the case has already commenced (case transferred to the Children's Court, charges framed, five witnesses examined), this Court found no merit in the instant criminal revision.

¶22

Key takeaways

This Court took into consideration the subsequent fact that, while in the Children's Home, the CiCL together with three other CiCLs committed the murder of the guard of that home.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.), Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2024, decided 24-07-2025, arising from PS Case No. 72 of 2022, P.S. Kopa, District Saran: revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenging the Children's Court (Additional District Judge XII, Saran at Chapra) order dated 21.12.2023 in Criminal Juvenile Appeal No. 29/2022, whereby the informant's appeal was allowed, the Juvenile Justice Board's order dated 24.06.2022 (recording a Section 15 preliminary assessment that the CiCL, aged about 16 years 4 months, though over 16, had mental ability not at par with his age, and that the Board would try the case itself) was set aside, and the case was remitted to the Board. Petitioner's grievance: the appellate court remanded without making its own Section 15 preliminary assessment or taking assistance of experienced psychologists/medical specialists beyond those consulted by the Board. Held: revision dismissed on contest — the trial had already commenced (case transferred to the Children's Court, charges framed, five witnesses examined); the Court also took into consideration that the CiCL, with three other CiCLs, committed the murder of a Children's Home guard while lodged there. No order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.300 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2022 Thana- KOPA District- Saran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Sahil Sharma @ Sahil Kumar son of Nitendra Sharma @ Nital Sharma Village- Bhatwalia PS- Kopa Dist- Saran P/A- Bhatwalia PS- Kopa DistSaran

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Anita Devi wife of Shyam Babu Sharma Village- Bhatwalia Ps- Kopa DistSaran at Chapra

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vipin Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶12

10 24-07-2025 The father of the Juvenile has filed the instant criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, challenging an order dated 21^st December 2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge XII, Civil Court, Saran at Chapra on 21^st December 2023. In Criminal Juvenile Appeal No . 29 / 2022, instituted against the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra, an order was passed on 24^th June 2022, holding, inter alia , that the CiCL was aged about 16 years 4 months on the date of commission of the alleged offence. Since the offence alleged against the petitioner was committed under Sections 302 / 201 / 34 IPC, the Board made a preliminary

¶13

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.300 of 2024(10) dt.24-07-2025 2/4

¶14

assessment of a heinous offence as provided by Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. After preliminary assessment, with regard to the mental and physical capacity of the juvenile’s ability to understand the consequence of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, the Board, on majority, passed an order that, although the petitioner was more than 16 years of age on the date of commission of the offence, his mental ability was not at par with his age, and therefore the Board decided to try the case on its own.

¶15

The informant filed an appeal against the aforesaid decision, which was registered as Criminal Juvenile Appeal No. 29/2022. The said appeal was taken up for hearing by the learned Additional Sessions Judge XII, Saran at Chapra. The appellate court found that the offence allegedly committed by the CiCL along with a co-accused was heinous in nature. Secondly, the appellate court held that the juvenile had no interest in his life; he did not care to die and he is a follower of ‘Ravana’. The Children’s Court further held that the counselor reported that the juvenile had no proper understanding of the offence. However, the court of appeal found that the Board decided the issue without considering the report of the

¶16

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.300 of 2024(10) dt.24-07-2025 3/4

¶17

counselor. Therefore, the Children’s Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Board and remitted back the case to the Board directing it to proceed with the case regarding prescribed trial procedure in accordance with law.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is aggrieved against the said order passed by the appellate court without making the preliminary assessment into a heinous offence under Section 15 of the Act and the appellate court while deciding the appeal failed to take assistance of experienced psychologists, medical specialists, other than those whose assistance have been obtained by the Board in passing the order under the said Section.

¶19

The learned Advocate on behalf of the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that, after the impugned order dated 21^st December 2023 was passed, the Board transferred the case to the Children’s Court, the trial against the petitioner commenced, charges were framed, and five witnesses have been examined. At this stage, the instant revision becomes infructuous.

¶20

I have duly considered the subsequent development of the case. It is further found from the record that, while the CiCL was in the Children’s Home, he, along with three other

¶21

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.300 of 2024(10) dt.24-07-2025 4/4

¶22

CiCLs, committed the murder of the guard of the said home. The subsequent fact is also taken into consideration by this Court. Since the trial of the case has already commenced, I do not find any merit in the instant criminal revision.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed on contest. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶24

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶25

Suraj Dubey/-

¶26

U T

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 21.12.2023 in Criminal Juvenile Appeal No. 29/2022 by which the Children's Court (Additional District Judge XII, Saran at Chapra) allowed the informant's appeal, set aside the Juvenile Justice Board's order dated 24.06.2022 and remitted the case back to the Board to proceed with trial in accordance with law.¶12
Additional District Judge XII, Civil Court, Saran at Chapra (Children's Court) · 21-12-2023
Prior proceeding
Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra passed an order on 24.06.2022 holding inter alia that the CiCL was aged about 16 years 4 months on the date of the alleged offence.¶12
Prior proceeding
Treating the offence under Sections 302/201/34 IPC as heinous, the Board made a preliminary assessment under Section 15 JJ Act and, on majority, held that although the petitioner was over 16, his mental ability was not at par with his age, deciding to try the case on its own.¶14
Prior proceeding
The informant filed an appeal against the Board's decision, registered as Criminal Juvenile Appeal No. 29/2022 and heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge XII, Saran at Chapra.¶15
Prior proceeding
Appellate court found the offence heinous; held the juvenile had no interest in his life and was a follower of 'Ravana'; further found the counselor reported that the juvenile had no proper understanding of the offence and that the Board decided without considering the counselor's report.¶15
Prior proceeding
After the impugned order, the Board transferred the case to the Children's Court; trial against the petitioner commenced, charges were framed and five witnesses examined, prompting the contention that the revision had become infructuous.¶19
Prior proceeding
Further subsequent development noted by this Court: while lodged in the Children's Home the CiCL, along with three other CiCLs, committed the murder of the guard of that home; this fact was taken into consideration by the Court.¶22

Sahil Sharma @ Sahil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil Sharma @ Sahil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Vs Puja Kumari

Digambar Thakur Vs Poonam Thakur

Meera Devi@ Mira Devi Vs Upendra Yadav @ Upendra Prasad Yadav

Murari Ray @ Murari Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Suman Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Munna Yadav @ Munna Kumar Vs The State of Bihar