The Supreme Court has held that an expert report obtained for a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act is only one significant input, and cannot be treated as the sole basis for deciding whether a child in conflict with law should be tried as an adult.

The Court held that the Juvenile Justice Board must independently apply its mind to the expert opinion, its interaction with the child, the Social Background Report, the Social Investigation Report, witness statements and other material before it.

The Court was hearing an appeal by a child in conflict with law, whose age was determined as 16 years and 4 months at the time of the alleged offence. The case arose from allegations of murder, where the Juvenile Justice Board had, by majority, decided that the child need not be tried as an adult, but the appellate court reversed that decision and directed transfer of the matter to the Children’s Court. The Patna High Court affirmed that order.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the appeal, while clarifying the approach to be followed by Juvenile Justice Boards under Section 15 of the JJ Act. The Bench observed:

“We may with a view to obviate any confusion, clarify that the report by an expert in accordance with the proviso to Section 15(1) is one significant input among several considerations. In other words, it could not be the sole consideration in the Board’s decision. The expert opinion must be read and assessed along with its interaction with the child, the SBR, the SIR, the statement of witness, and other material placed before the Board, if any. The members of the Board are required to apply their mind independently on all such materials. We emphasize that the Board cannot abdicate its responsibilities by mechanically adopting the conclusions of the expert without examining whether the conclusions reached are supported by the totality of the material before it.”

Advocate Sachin Patil appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Samir Ali Khan appeared for the State of Bihar.

Background

The case arose from a complaint by the deceased’s mother, who alleged that her son had gone out with the appellant and another boy, after which his phone was found switched off. His body was later found in a field. The appellant and another juvenile were named as prime suspects.

After investigation, a chargesheet was filed for offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellant raised a plea of juvenility, and the Magistrate forwarded the child and the record to the Juvenile Justice Board. The Board determined that the appellant was 16 years and 4 months old on the date of the alleged offence.

Since the case involved a child above 16 years accused of an alleged heinous offence, the Board conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act. The majority opinion of the Board held that the Board itself should deal with the case, as the child lacked the mental and physical capacity to commit the alleged offence. The Presiding Magistrate dissented and found that the child was capable of understanding the act.

The complainant appealed. The appellate court set aside the Board’s order and held that the appellant should be tried as an adult. The High Court dismissed the child’s revision, noting that the trial had commenced and witnesses had been examined. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations

The Court first considered whether an offence under Section 302 IPC, punishable with death or imprisonment for life, could fall within the “serious offence” category instead of “heinous offence” under the JJ Act.

The appellant argued that since Section 302 IPC does not expressly prescribe a minimum term of imprisonment in years, it should fall under Section 2(54)(b) of the JJ Act as a serious offence. The Court rejected the submission.

The Court stated: “We would be stating the obvious that a court convicting an accused of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC cannot impose any lesser sentence than imprisonment for life. The statute does not provide any discretion to the courts to award any punishment below imprisonment for life. Thus, life imprisonment is, by implication, the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 302 of the IPC.”

The Court also rejected the argument that Section 21 of the JJ Act, which protects a child from being sentenced to death or life imprisonment without possibility of release, changes the classification of the offence.

The Court held: “The benefit conferred by Section 21 operates specifically at the stage of sentencing. It comes into picture once the guilt is determined and the court has to decide upon the sentence to be imposed. It cannot be imported into the question of classification of offences for the purposes of determining the forum of trial. Categorization or classification deals with what punishment the offence would ordinarily yield under the statute.”

The Court accordingly held that Section 302 IPC falls within “heinous offence” under the JJ Act.

The appellant also argued that the appellate court was bound under Section 101(2) of the JJ Act to take assistance of experienced psychologists or medical specialists while deciding an appeal against a Section 15 preliminary assessment order. Reliance was placed on Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu (2023).

The Supreme Court held that the mandatory character attached to expert assistance under the proviso to Section 15(1), as explained in Barun Chandra Thakur (2023), cannot be mechanically transplanted to Section 101(2).

The Court observed: “The net effect of the aforesaid discussion is that Section 101(2) confers a power upon the Appellate Court to seek the assistance of experts, the exercise of which remains within the discretion of the Court, to be assessed by weighing the factors discussed above on the facts of each case.”

The Bench further explained that the appellate court’s function is different from that of the Board.

The Bench remarked: “Section 15 contemplates a first-hand determination of the mental and physical capacity of the child to commit the alleged offence, the child’s ability to understand the consequences of the offence alleged to be committed, and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence. Whereas, an appeal under Section 101(2) is concerned with the correctness of the Board’s order on the basis of the material gathered including the opinion of the expert.”

In the present case, the Court noted that the Board had already obtained a counsellor’s report, and the appellate court’s criticism was not that expert assistance was absent, but that the Board had failed to correctly weigh the material.

The Court then explained the proper approach under Section 15 of the JJ Act. It said the preliminary assessment is meant only to decide whether a child above 16 accused of a heinous offence should be tried as an adult.

The Court stated: “At the outset, we must underscore that the Board at the time of assessment is not concerned with the guilt or innocence of the child in conflict with law. In other words, the Board must not express any view, draw any inference, or make any observations regarding the guilt or innocence of the child.”

It added that any such observation would be contrary to fair trial rights and the presumption of innocence.

The Court identified four statutory parameters under Section 15: mental capacity to commit the offence, physical capacity to commit the offence, ability to understand the consequences, and the circumstances in which the offence was allegedly committed.

The Court held that each of the four parameters under Section 15 must be assessed independently and collectively. It also emphasised that Rule 10A of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules requires the Board to assign reasons while passing a preliminary assessment order.

The Court noted that the Social Background Report is prepared from information regarding the child’s antecedents, family background and other material circumstances. The Social Investigation Report contains details of the circumstances of the alleged offence, and the child’s economic, social, psycho-social and other relevant factors. Witness statements recorded during investigation must also be placed before the Board.

The Court underscored that expert opinion cannot substitute the Board’s adjudicatory responsibility.

The Court held: “The final report of the Board must contain a reasoned decision on whether the child in conflict with law is to be tried as an adult, together with the reasons for accepting or rejecting the observations and recommendations contained in the SIR, the SBR, and the witness statements. Such an exercise must be hooked to the four parameters stipulated under Section 15(1).”

Applying this to the case, the Court found that the Board’s majority opinion had relied solely on expert opinion and failed to consider the SIR and SBR.

The Court observed: “In the present case, the JJ Board arrived at the conclusion solely on the basis of expert opinion obtained in accordance with proviso to Section 15(1). The majority opinion of the JJ Board makes no mention whatsoever of the SIR or the SBR. It erred in failing to consider the SIR and the SBR, more particularly, the antecedents and recommendations made by the Probation Officer and the CWPO, respectively.”

The Court further held: “We underscore or rather emphasize that the SIR and the SBR reports are not supplementary material, they constitute pertinent inputs for the preliminary assessment and must be accorded due weight alongside the expert opinion.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that no error of law had been committed by the High Court in affirming the order directing that the appellant be tried as an adult. The appeal was dismissed, with parties directed to bear their own costs.

The Court also directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to all High Courts.

Cause Title: X v. State of Bihar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 728)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates Sachin Patil, Kailas Bajirao Autade, Amaresh Narayan Singh, Muhammed Risvi, Shobhit Dwivedi, Shivkumar Jangwad, Shoaib Akhter, Vishnu Priya and Sadanand

Respondents: Advocates Samir Ali Khan, Pranjal Sharma, Kashif Irshad Khan, Prashant Bhardwaj, Rishi Bharadwaj, Aditya Pratap Singh and Rahul Mehalwal

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: