16-Year-Old Accused of Slitting Boy’s Throat Can Be Tried as an Adult; Supreme Court Says Murder Is a ‘Heinous Offence’ and Juvenile Board Must Assess Capacity, Consequences and Background

Juvenile Justice Board Found 16-Year-Old Unfit for Adult Trial; Supreme Court Upholds Contrary Decision After Board Ignored Key Reports

Facts

On 1 May 2022, at approximately 10:00 a.m., the deceased left his home with the appellant and another boy in a vehicle. By noon, the deceased’s mobile phone was switched off, and his mother could not locate him.

The following morning, some cowherds informed the mother that a boy’s body had been found in the fields. She identified the body as that of her son and named the appellant and the other boy as the primary suspects.

A First Information Report was registered as Crime Number 72 of 2022 at Kopa Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These provisions concern murder, causing disappearance of evidence and acts committed with a common intention.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant had slit the deceased’s throat with a knife. The weapon was allegedly recovered at the appellant’s instance during the investigation.

After the charge sheet was filed, the appellant raised a claim of juvenility. The jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board determined that he was 16 years and four months old on the date of the alleged offence.

Since the appellant was above 16 years of age and was accused of murder, the Juvenile Justice Board conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The majority of the Board concluded that the appellant did not possess the mental and physical capacity to commit the alleged offence and should, therefore, be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board itself. The Presiding Magistrate dissented and found that the appellant was capable of understanding his alleged conduct and should be tried as an adult.

The deceased’s mother challenged the majority decision before the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chapra. On 21 December 2023, the Appellate Court set aside the Board’s order and held that the appellant should be tried as an adult.

The appellant challenged that decision before the Patna High Court. He principally argued that the Appellate Court had not obtained assistance from fresh psychologists and medical specialists as allegedly required under Section 101(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act.

On 24 July 2025, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision. The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

In accordance with Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the identity of the appellant was concealed and the case was titled simply as X v. State of Bihar and Another.

Issues

1. Whether murder, punishable with death or imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, falls within the category of a “heinous offence” or a “serious offence” under the Juvenile Justice Act.
2. Whether the expression “may” in Section 101(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act makes it mandatory for the Sessions Court to obtain assistance from fresh psychologists or medical specialists while deciding an appeal against a preliminary assessment.
3. What materials and factors must be considered by the Juvenile Justice Board while determining whether a child above 16 years of age should be tried as an adult.

Appellant’s Arguments

The appellant argued that murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code should be classified as a “serious offence” and not a “heinous offence.”

According to him, Section 302 provides for death or imprisonment for life but does not expressly prescribe a minimum term of imprisonment. Therefore, it fell within Section 2(54)(b) of the Juvenile Justice Act, covering offences where the maximum punishment exceeds seven years but no minimum punishment is prescribed.

The appellant further relied upon Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which prohibits sentencing a child to death or imprisonment for life without the possibility of release. He argued that life imprisonment could not consequently be treated as the minimum punishment for classifying the offence.

It was also submitted that Section 101(2) required the Sessions Court to obtain assistance from experienced psychologists and medical specialists different from those consulted by the Juvenile Justice Board.

Reliance was placed on Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu, where the Supreme Court held that expert assistance under Section 15 becomes mandatory when the Juvenile Justice Board does not include a qualified child psychologist or psychiatrist.

Respondents’ Arguments

The State of Bihar argued that imprisonment for life necessarily constitutes a minimum punishment exceeding seven years. Murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code must, therefore, be treated as a “heinous offence.”

The complainant argued that the seriousness of the offence was evident from the punishment of death or imprisonment for life prescribed for murder.

She further contended that the expression “minimum punishment” in Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act should be understood as the least punishment that a court can legally impose. For murder, the lowest possible punishment is imprisonment for life.

The respondents maintained that the Sessions Court was not required to appoint fresh experts in every appeal and that no legal error had been committed by the High Court.

Analysis of the Law

Classification of Offences

The Supreme Court explained that the Juvenile Justice Act classifies offences into three categories:

• Petty offences: Offences carrying a maximum punishment of up to three years.
• Serious offences: Offences carrying imprisonment between three and seven years, as well as offences where the maximum punishment exceeds seven years but the minimum punishment is below seven years or no minimum punishment is prescribed.
• Heinous offences: Offences carrying a minimum punishment of seven years or more.

Although Section 302 does not expressly use the words “minimum punishment,” a court convicting an accused of murder cannot impose a sentence lower than imprisonment for life. Life imprisonment is, therefore, the minimum punishment by necessary implication.

The word “or” between death and imprisonment for life merely gives the court a choice between those two punishments. It does not permit the court to award a sentence below imprisonment for life.

Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act does not alter this classification. It only prohibits imposing life imprisonment without the possibility of release upon a child. It concerns the manner in which a sentence may be served and not the classification of the underlying offence.

Expert Assistance in Appeal

Section 101(2) provides that the Sessions Court “may” obtain assistance from experienced psychologists and medical specialists while deciding an appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the word “may” is discretionary in this provision. It cannot automatically be read as “shall.”

The Sessions Court must examine the facts of each case and determine whether fresh expert assistance is necessary. Where the Juvenile Justice Board has not obtained any competent expert assistance, the Appellate Court may find it necessary to obtain such assistance.

However, where expert and counselling reports already form part of the record, the Sessions Court can examine whether the Board correctly appreciated those reports without appointing another psychologist or medical specialist.

Preliminary Assessment

The Court explained that a preliminary assessment under Section 15 is not a trial and does not determine whether the child is guilty.

The Juvenile Justice Board must separately and collectively assess:

1. The child’s mental capacity to commit the alleged offence;
2. The child’s physical capacity to commit the alleged offence;
3. The child’s ability to understand the consequences of the alleged offence; and
4. The circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed.

The Board must consider the expert’s report along with:

• The Social Background Report;
• The Social Investigation Report;
• Statements of witnesses;
• The child’s interaction with the Board;
• The child’s antecedents and previous conduct;
• The child’s educational, emotional and psychological development; and
• All other relevant material.

An expert opinion is an important input, but it is neither conclusive nor binding upon the Board.

Precedent Analysis

Shilpa Mittal v. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi)

This judgment identified a gap concerning offences where the maximum punishment exceeded seven years but no minimum punishment, or a minimum below seven years, was prescribed.

Such offences were subsequently included within the definition of “serious offences” through the 2021 amendment. The Supreme Court clarified that murder does not fall within this category because imprisonment for life is its minimum punishment.

Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu

The Court held that expert assistance during the preliminary assessment under Section 15 is mandatory when the Juvenile Justice Board does not contain a practising professional qualified in child psychology or child psychiatry.

The Supreme Court clarified that this principle cannot be mechanically applied to Section 101(2). Fresh expert assistance is not mandatory in every appeal before the Sessions Court.

Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v. State of Maharashtra

This decision recognised that imprisonment for life is the minimum sentence prescribed for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandu alias Nandua

This case also supported the proposition that a court cannot impose a punishment below imprisonment for life after recording a conviction for murder.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram Upadhya

This judgment explained that whether statutory language is mandatory or directory depends upon the wording, object, scheme and consequences of the provision.

Official Liquidator v. Dharti Dhan Private Limited

The Court held that the use of the word “may” ordinarily confers discretion. Whether that discretion becomes coupled with a duty depends upon the legal and factual context.

Pradeep Kumar v. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi)

The Delhi High Court held that the Juvenile Justice Board is not bound by an expert’s opinion. It must independently consider the circumstances and other relevant material.

Child in Conflict with Law v. State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court held that all four statutory parameters must be specifically examined during a preliminary assessment. The Sessions Court may obtain independent expert assistance in appeal but is not bound by the reports considered by the Juvenile Justice Board.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s attempt to classify murder as a serious offence.

It held that:

1. Imprisonment for life is the lowest sentence legally available for murder.
2. Murder consequently carries a minimum punishment exceeding seven years and falls squarely within the definition of a heinous offence.
3. Section 21 protects a juvenile from imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without the possibility of release. It does not change the statutory punishment for murder or the classification of the offence.
4. Section 101(2) does not require the Sessions Court to appoint fresh psychologists or medical specialists in every appeal.
5. The Appellate Court may seek fresh expert assistance where the circumstances of the case make it necessary.
6. In the present case, the Juvenile Justice Board had already obtained a counsellor’s report. The Appellate Court was examining whether the Board had properly evaluated the available material rather than conducting a fresh preliminary assessment.
7. The majority of the Juvenile Justice Board relied substantially upon the expert opinion but failed to properly consider the Social Investigation Report and Social Background Report.
8. These reports were not merely supplementary documents. They were material inputs which had to be considered alongside the expert’s opinion.
9. The Board could accept or reject the expert’s recommendation, but only after independently examining the entire record and providing reasons connected with the four statutory parameters under Section 15.

The Supreme Court clarified that its observations concerned only the legality of the preliminary assessment and would have no bearing upon the determination of guilt during trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is a heinous offence under the Juvenile Justice Act because imprisonment for life is its minimum punishment.

It further held that obtaining fresh assistance from psychologists or medical specialists under Section 101(2) is discretionary and is not mandatory in every appeal.

The Juvenile Justice Board must independently consider the expert opinion, Social Background Report, Social Investigation Report, witness statements and all other relevant materials before deciding whether a child should be tried as an adult.

Finding no legal error in the Patna High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The decision allowing the appellant to be tried as an adult before the Children’s Court was consequently left undisturbed.

Case Details

Case: X v. State of Bihar and Another, 2026 Indian Supreme Court 728
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Number 3299 of 2026, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Number 5633 of 2026
Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Date: 21 July 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; murder classified as a heinous offence and the decision permitting the appellant’s trial as an adult left undisturbed.

Read Also: Wrongly Kept Out of CRPF Service for Decades, Officer Gets Promotion Benefits, Back Wages and ₹10 Lakh From Supreme Court