1. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "the Act of 2015") has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant challenging the order dated 26/4/2024 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara (in short "Fourth ASJ") in Criminal Appeal No.44/2024, whereby the order dated 21/2/2024 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Chhindwara (in short "JJB") in Enquiry Case No.201/2023 (by which the JJB transferred the case to be tried by ASJ/Children's Court), has been set aside by allowing the appeal filed by the respondent 2/child in conflict with law.

2. Facts of the case in short are that on 29/9/2023 the petitioner/complainant lodged a Missing Person report in the police station to the effect that her son, namely, Jai Namdev is missing since noon of 28/9/2023 and even after search in the possible places, he could not be traced. Pursuant thereto, an FIR was registered and during investigation, on 1/10/2023 a dead body was recovered, which was identified to be that of the missing son of the petitioner/complainant, and as the alleged incident was found to be committed by the respondent 2/child in conflict with law, who, at the time of commission of offence, was more than 16 years and less than 18 years of age, therefore, the charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 363, 302 and 201 of IPC was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board.

3. After consideration of the true copy of Dakhila-Kharij (register of the school), original certificate provided by the school and the original mark-sheet of Class 5th of the respondent 2, in which his date of birth was mentioned as 18/2/2007, respondent 2's age on the date of incident, i.e.28/9/2023, was found to be 16 years 7 months and 10 days and thus, the JJB found him to be the child in conflict with law as per Section 2 (13) of the Act of 2015. However, after considering the psychological report submitted by the concerned doctor as well as the social investigation report submitted by the Probation Officer and the fact that the offence alleged against the child in conflict with law is heinous in nature, as the respondent 2 is alleged to have murdered the deceased by strangulation being annoyed with the fact that the deceased used to tease him, as the respondent 2 could not pass Class 10 th examination, and further with the intention of concealing the identity of the deceased, respondent 2 used a stone to disfigure the face of the deceased and also slit his neck with the help of blade and also that as per the psychological report, the respondent 2/child in conflict with law appears to have the ability to understand the consequences of the offence, the JJB found that it would be in the interest of justice to try the offence allegedly committed by the respondent 2/child in conflict with law as an adult by the ASJ/Children's Court and accordingly, after recording its preliminary assessment as per Section 15 of the Act of 2015, transferred the case to the Children's Court vide order dated 21/2/2024.

4. In criminal appeal filed by the respondent 2/child in conflict with law under Section 101 of the Act of 2015, the Fourth ASJ by allowing the appeal, set aside the order dated 21/2/2024 passed by the JJB by holding that the respondent 2/child in conflict with law has allegedly committed the offence being annoyed with the fact that the deceased used to tease him and there is nothing in the psychological report or in the social investigation report to suggest that the respondent 2/child in conflict with law was able to understand the far reaching consequences of the offence and the social stigma on the child and his family members as well as about the level of his intelligence and emotional competence to control himself or his actions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the JJB after due consideration of the psychological report as well as the social investigation report and by applying its mind to all material available on record, had rightly transferred the case for trial of respondent 2/child in conflict with law as an adult by the ASJ/Children's Court, however, the Fourth ASJ committed an illegality in setting aside the said order passed by the JJB without taking into consideration the fact that after murdering the deceased by strangulation, the respondent 2/child in conflict with law, in order to conceal the identity of the deceased used a stone to disfigure the face of the deceased and also slit his neck with the help of blade and thus, it cannot be said that the respondent 2/child in conflict with law was not able to understand the far reaching consequences of the offence. The offence allegedly committed by the respondent 2/child in conflict with law is a heinous offence and the interference made by the Fourth ASJ in the preliminary assessment made by the JJB under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 regarding trial of the offence allegedly committed by the respondent 2/child in conflict with law as an adult by the ASJ/Children's Court, is illegal. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant prays for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Fourth ASJ and for allowing this criminal revision.

6. In turn, learned counsel for the respondent 2/child in conflict with law supports the impugned order passed by the Fourth ASJ and prays for dismissal of this criminal revision. He further submits that as the psychologist's report submitted before the JJB was lacking certain basic requirements, therefore, the Fourth ASJ rightly set aside the order passed by the JJB directing the respondent 2/child in conflict with law to be tried as an adult by ASJ/Children's Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Perusal of the record shows that in order to make preliminary assessment as per Section 15 of the Act of 2015, psychological report and social investigation report, in respect of the respondent 2/child in conflict with law, were taken into consideration by the JJB. Age of the respondent 2/child in conflict with law, on the date of commission of offence, was found to be 16 years 7 months and 10 days as per his school record. The JJB after consideration of the psychological report and social investigation report, found that the respondent 2/child in conflict with law was able to understand the consequences of the offence, as allegedly after murdering the deceased by strangulation, the respondent 2/child in conflict with law, in order to conceal the identity of the deceased, also used stone to disfigure the face of the deceased and slit his neck with the help of blade and accordingly, transferred the case for trial of respondent 2/child in conflict with law as an adult by the Children's Court. However, the Fourth ASJ merely by mentioning that there is no specific mention either in the psychological report or in the social investigation report that the respondent 2/child in conflict with law was able to understand the far reaching consequences of the offence and the social stigma on the child and his family members as well as about the level of his intelligence and emotional competence to control himself or his actions, set aside the order passed by the JJB.

9. In my considered opinion, while dealing with the appeal, as the Fourth ASJ was of the opinion that the psychological report submitted before the JJB was lacking certain basic requirements, therefore, the Fourth ASJ should have exercised its discretion and independently called for the assistance of an experienced psychologist or medical specialists other than, whose assistance has been obtained by the JJB while passing the order under Section 15 of the Act of 2015, as the Fourth ASJ was not bound by the report of the psychologist or medical specialist obtained by the JJB, but the Fourth ASJ failed to do so.

10. In the aforesaid context, para 81 of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of X Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., 2026 INSC 728 = 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 702, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Child in Conflict with Law v. State of Gujarat; 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 3119, is referred to and the same is reproduced as under:-

          "81. In Child in Conflict with Law (supra) the Gujarat High Court listed factors, other than those written in the SBR or SIR, to be considered during the course of preliminary assessment. The overarching idea flowing across the factors remain that an overall assessment, more particularly, the past conduct, of the child should be undertaken. The Court further noted that while dealing with an appeal, the Appellate Court may call for assistance by expert and are not bound by the report of the expert placed before the JJ Board. The relevant observations read thus:-

          "99. The children are treated as an adult offenders because of offence category. Thus, the provisions of the section invoked, would also require consideration during the course of preliminary assessment alongwith, the record and previous history of the child in the present jurisdiction or other jurisdiction including:

          (i) the number and nature of the previous cases of the child with the Board;

          (ii) The number and nature of prior period of probation;

          (iii) the number and nature of prior commitments to child correctional centers;

          (iv) the number and nature of previous residential and community - based treatments;

          (v) whether previous adjudications and commitments were for delinquent acts that involved the infliction of serious bodily injury, and;

          (vi) whether the alleged offense is part of a repetitive pattern of similar adjudicated offenses;

          (vii) Whether the juvenile has previously absconded from the legal custody of a juvenile correctional entity in this or any other jurisdiction;

          (viii) The degree of intellectual disability or mental illness;

          (ix) The juvenile's school record and education;

          (x) The juvenile's mental and emotional maturity; and

          (xi) The juvenile's physical condition and physical maturity.

          xxx

          103. Here, in the impugned order, the Children's Court has placed reliance on the reports placed before the J.J. Board. The Children's Court while dealing in appeal under section 101(2) of the J.J. Act, can independently deal with the case of child by taking assistance of experienced psychologists and medical specialists other than those, whose assistance, has been obtained by the Board in passing the order under the section 15 of the J.J. Act. The appeal provision makes, thus, clear that the Sessions Judge are not bound by the report of the psychologist or medical specialists obtained by the Board and can independently call for assistance of experienced psychologists and medical specialists, to deal with the order passed under Section 15 of preliminary assessment by the Board."

          (Emphasis supplied)"

11. Apparently, aforesaid settled legal position has not been followed by the Fourth ASJ while passing the impugned order. Moreso, when the details with regards to circumstances in which the child in conflict with law committed the alleged offence was not present in the psychologist report submitted before JJB, the Fourth ASJ before setting aside the impugned order should have taken assistance of Medical expert and had called a fresh psychologist report containing details with regards to circumstances in which the child in conflict with law committed the alleged offence. The offence allegedly committed by the respondent 2/child in conflict with law is a heinous offence and thus, in spite of availability of aforesaid discretion with the Fourth ASJ to independently call for the assistance of some other experienced psychologist or medical specialists, the recourse adopted by the Fourth ASJ to set aside the order of the JJB only on the ground of lack of certain basic requirements in the report of the psychologist submitted before the JJB is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Although the aforesaid duty casted on the Appellate Court is discretionary in nature, but when the Fourth ASJ itself has found that the psychologist's report submitted before the JJB is lacking certain basic requirements, then certainly the circumstances exist necessitating exercise of aforesaid discretion, denial whereof would defeat the ends of justice. The intent of the Legislature to treat the children between the age of 16- 18 years as a separate class is based on the rise in number of juveniles in conflict with law and with a view to balance the rehabilitative rights of the juvenile on one hand and the broader interest of societal deterrence on the other. Thus, while dealing with a child in conflict with law, the Court must bear a balanced approach towards the evolving nature of juvenile and legitimate demands of the society.

12. In any case, in conducting a preliminary assessment under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the Board or the Children's Court must consider the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. Due weight should be accorded to the reports of the psychologist, psychiatrist (where available), probation officer, and other experts. At the same time, the Court is not bound by any such report and must independently evaluate the entire material available on record. While undertaking such assessment, the Court shall take into consideration, inter alia, the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed, the child's mental and emotional maturity, intellectual capacity, social and family background, normal behavioural pattern, any history of depression or other psychological conditions, and the likely consequences of the alleged offence. The Court must also remain conscious of the impact of the alleged offence on the victim and the victim's family. The ultimate determination must be based on a holistic appreciation of all the evidence and material placed on record. No single report or circumstance should be treated as conclusive, nor should any relevant material be ignored. The decision must reflect a balanced consideration of all relevant factors rather than being influenced by any isolated piece of evidence.

13. Resultantly, this criminal revision succeeds and is hereby allowed and by setting aside the impugned order dated 26/4/2024, matter is remanded to the Fourth ASJ for passing order afresh in the light of aforesaid settled legal position, without being influenced by this order.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

15. In conformity with the mandate of Section 74 of the Act of 2015, the identity of the child in conflict with law has been concealed throughout this order.