Delhi High Court: A criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner, CCL ‘K,’ challenging the order dated 23-05-2022, passed by the Trial Court which dismissed his application under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’ and sought to stop the ongoing joint proceedings with the adult accused in connection with FIR registered under Sections 186, 353, 302 and 34 IPC. Anish Dayal, J., quashed the Trial Court’s order dated 23-05-2022 and directed that the petitioner’s trial be conducted separately from that of the adult co-accused and held that the Trial Court erred in permitting joint proceedings of the petitioner with the adult accused.
On 26-09-2016, an incident occurred at Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Sultanpuri Road, Nangloi, Delhi, where bloodstains were found at the main gate and inside classroom No. 108. The injured teacher was admitted to Sri Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, with an MLC noting “assault by sharp weapon at around 5 PM at Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, SP Road, Nangloi by two school students Vivek and Master K.” The Vice Principal (complainant) reported that the accused students had earlier threatened the teacher due to their belief that Master K’s name had been struck off the school rolls because of him. On the day of the incident, the teacher was attacked while counting answer sheets, and the accused were seen fleeing the school premises by scaling the wall. Subsequently, the injured teacher succumbed to his injuries, leading to the addition of Section 302 IPC to the case.
Both accused persons, one aged 19 years and other (Master K) aged 17 years were apprehended on 27-09-2016. The weapon of offence, a knife, was recovered from one, while a punch used by Master K was recovered separately. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) verified the age of the accused from school records, confirming CCL K’s date of birth as 29-10-1998. On 09-01-2017, the JJB assessed that CCL K had the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence, understood its consequences, and acted with criminal intent. Consequently, the case was transferred to the designated Children’s Court for trial as an adult.
The primary issue before the Court was whether a ‘child in conflict with law’ (CCL) who has been directed to be tried ‘as an adult’ can be tried jointly with an adult accused.
The Court examined the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents to determine the legality of the joint proceedings. The Court noted that Section 23 of the JJ Act is a non-obstante provision, overriding the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including Section 223, which allows joint trials in certain circumstances. The Court emphasized that the language of Section 23 explicitly prohibits joint proceedings of a ‘child in conflict with law’ and a ‘person who is not a child.’
The Court further distinguished between being ‘tried as an adult’ and ‘tried along with an adult.’ It held that while Section 18(3) allows a child to be tried following the procedure applicable to adults, it does not imply that the child can be subjected to a joint trial with an adult accused. The Court observed that maintaining separate proceedings is crucial to upholding the rehabilitative intent of the JJ Act and ensuring a child-friendly atmosphere. The Court also cited precedents affirming that beneficial legislation must be interpreted in favor of the protected class in this case, children in conflict with law.
On the aspect of whether an offender who is declared a child i.e. less than 18 years, but post -preliminary assessment under Section 15 by the JJB, is directed for trial ‘as an adult’, what would be the consequences, the Court remarked that “the trial as an adult before a Children’s Court effectively means that that particular offender/child would be outside the purview of possibilities the Board can adopt under Section 18(1) and (2) of JJ Act -inter alia allow the child to go home, direct group counseling, community service, payment of fine, release on probation of good conduct, directed to be sent to a special home. Determination under Section 18(3) of JJ Act plucks the child out of Section 18(1) and (2) situations and directs him to a trial which is faced by, like any other adult, except it is before a Children’s Court. Once before a Children’s Court, the Children’s Court can exercise powers under Section 19 and either decide that the trial shall continue in a ‘child-friendly atmosphere’ or otherwise there was no need for trial of the child as an adult
The Court also remarked that “Considering the prohibition is to ‘joint proceedings’, there can be no doubt that the CCL must be tried independently from the adult offender and the recording of evidence relating to the rest of the witnesses and the final tail end of the trial including the arguments, ought to be conducted independently.”
Thus, the Court held that the Trial Court erred in permitting joint proceedings of the petitioner with the adult accused. The Court quashed the Trial Court’s order dated 23-05-2022 and directed that the petitioner’s trial be conducted separately from that of the adult co-accused.
[CCL ‘K’ v State, CRL. REV. P. 436 of 2022, decided on 03-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Ashim Sood, Mr. Ashish Kumar, Ms. Prateek Kundu, Ms. Yamina Rizvi, Ms. Ragini Nagpal, Ms. Isha Khurana, Mr. Ashish Panday, Ekansh Gupta, Mr. Ankur Singhal, Mr. Subramaniam, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State with Insp. Narender, SI Pankaj Yadav, PS: Nangloi for respondents
