Court’s Decision
The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that a juvenile, even if tried as an adult under Section 15 and 18(3) of the JJ Act, cannot be subjected to a joint trial with an adult accused. The court set aside the trial court’s order and directed that the juvenile’s trial be conducted separately.
Facts of the Case
- On 26th September 2016, an incident occurred at a Government Boys Senior Secondary School in Nangloi, Delhi.
- The victim, a school teacher, was attacked and sustained multiple stab wounds.
- The accused included:
- A 17-year-old student (petitioner) whose name was removed from the school due to absenteeism.
- A 19-year-old student (co-accused).
- The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked the teacher in retaliation for removing the petitioner’s name from the school rolls.
- The teacher succumbed to his injuries at the hospital, leading to charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) conducted a preliminary assessment and found the petitioner psychologically and physically capable of understanding the consequences of his actions.
- The case was transferred to the Children’s Court for trial as an adult.
- The trial court ordered a joint trial with the adult co-accused, which led to the present revision petition challenging this decision.
Issues Before the Court
- Can a juvenile, after being assessed as an adult under the JJ Act, be tried jointly with an adult accused?
- Does Section 23 of the JJ Act, which prohibits joint trials of juveniles and adults, apply in this case?
- Does a “trial as an adult” under the JJ Act mean that the juvenile is equal to an adult in all respects, including joint trials?
- Would a joint trial violate the reformative principles of juvenile justice?
Arguments of the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel raised the following key arguments:
1. Violation of Section 23 of the JJ Act
- Section 23 clearly prohibits joint proceedings of a juvenile with an adult.
- The non-obstante clause in Section 23 overrides any other law, including Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows joint trials for co-accused persons in the same case.
2. ‘Trial as an Adult’ Does Not Mean ‘Trial with an Adult’
- The phrase “trial as an adult” under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act means that the child will be subject to the same procedural rigor as an adult but does not mean that the juvenile loses all the protective safeguards of the JJ Act.
- The Children’s Court still has a duty to ensure a child-friendly environment.
3. Risk of Prejudice in a Joint Trial
- A juvenile accused of a crime is more vulnerable to influence by an adult co-accused.
- A joint trial may stigma the juvenile, defeating the reformative approach of the JJ Act.
- A separate trial ensures that the best interests of the child are protected.
4. Judicial Precedents Supporting Separate Trials
The petitioner relied on various case laws:
- Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 – Juvenility can be raised at any stage of the trial.
- Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005) 3 SCC 551 – The JJ Act is beneficial legislation aimed at the reform of juveniles.
- Pintu Sureshbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat (2021) – Held that juveniles cannot be tried jointly with adults, even if they are accused of the same crime.
Arguments of the Respondent (State)
The prosecution, representing the state, countered with the following points:
1. Legislative Intent of Section 19 of the JJ Act
- Since the petitioner had been assessed under Section 15 and transferred for trial as an adult, he should be treated the same as an adult, including in joint trials.
2. Efficiency and Practicality
- Conducting two separate trials for the same crime would delay proceedings and burden the judicial system.
- Witnesses may have to testify twice, leading to inconsistencies in their statements.
3. No Express Prohibition of Joint Trials in Children’s Courts
- Section 23 of the JJ Act does not explicitly bar a joint trial in a Children’s Court.
Court’s Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the following key provisions:
1. Section 23 of the JJ Act – No Joint Proceedings
- This section categorically prohibits joint proceedings of a juvenile and an adult.
- The non-obstante clause gives it overriding power over CrPC provisions.
2. The Meaning of ‘Trial as an Adult’
- Being tried as an adult does not mean losing all child-friendly safeguards.
- The Children’s Court must still ensure a separate, child-sensitive trial.
3. Judicial Precedents
- The Gujarat High Court in Pintu Sureshbhai Prajapati (2021) held that even if the offense is the same, the juvenile’s trial must be separate.
- The Supreme Court in CCL A v. State (2020) ruled that children sent for adult trials remain juveniles in the eyes of the law.
Court’s Final Ruling
- The trial court’s order for a joint trial was set aside.
- The juvenile’s trial was separated from the adult co-accused.
- The case was remanded to the Children’s Court to conduct the juvenile’s trial separately, in a manner consistent with the JJ Act.
Implications of the Judgment
- Stronger Protections for Juveniles
- Reinforces the prohibition of joint trials under Section 23 of the JJ Act.
- Ensures that juveniles are not exposed to the adversarial system of adult trials.
- Judicial Clarity on ‘Trial as an Adult’
- Clarifies that being tried as an adult does not mean being tried with an adult.
- Upholds the child-friendly principles of the JJ Act.
- Ensures Compliance with International Child Rights Standards
- Aligns with UN guidelines on juvenile justice.
- Strengthens India’s commitment to rehabilitation over punishment.
- Guidance for Future Cases
- Sets a binding precedent for all cases where a juvenile is transferred for trial as an adult.
- Ensures that courts cannot order joint trials of juveniles and adults.
Conclusion
This landmark judgment reinforces the reformative and protective approach of the JJ Act. It establishes that juveniles, even when tried as adults, must have separate trials from adult accused. The ruling ensures that children in conflict with the law receive fair, rehabilitative treatment, in line with constitutional and international child protection principles.