The Allahabad High Court<\/b> on Thursday expressed its serious concerns over the ‘disastrous’ effects of television, internet, and social media on adolescents, observing that these mediums are causing a “loss of their innocence at a very early and tender age”, and that even the government can’t control their influence due to the ‘uncontrollable’ nature of the technologies involved.<\/p>\n
A bench of Justice Siddharth<\/b> made these observations while allowing a criminal revision filed by a juvenile challenging an order of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the POCSO Court, Kaushambi, that he be tried as an adult in an alleged case of consensual physical relationship with a minor girl.<\/p>\n “There is nothing on record to indicate that the revisionist is a predator on the prowl and is prone to repeating the offence without any provocation\u2026Merely because he committed a heinous crime he cannot be put to par with an adult when his social exposure was also found to be deficient by the psychologist”, the single judge noted as he directed that the revisionist be tried as a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dealing with the revision plea, the Court took note of the psychological assessment report wherein it was found that the revisionist, a 16-year-old boy, had an IQ of 66. This IQ would place him in the ‘borderline’ category of intellectual functioning, the court noted. <\/p>\n The court further noted that, based on the Senguine Form Board Test, his mental age was assessed to be just six years. The Court also took into account the findings of the report, which observed some difficulty in his social domains, and it noted poor academic performance as well as social interaction.<\/p>\n Against this backdrop, Justice Siddharth<\/b> remarked thus:<\/p>\n “This court finds that the report of psychologist was in favour of the revisionist. In the report it was clearly mentioned that the mental age of revisionist was six years only when he was above 16 years of age\u2026From the BKT IQ categories\u2026the revisionist with score of 62 comes in borderline category which is even below the category of low \/ below average”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Court also noted that when the revisionist indulged in a physical relationship with the victim, he was about 14 years of age. It also factored that the administration of abortion medicine to the victim was not at his sole discretion, and rather, two others were also involved in the decision.<\/p>\n Importantly, the bench stressed that under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Board must conduct a proper “preliminary assessment” based on four parameters: (i) mental capacity, (ii) physical capacity to commit the heinous offence, (iii) ability to understand consequences of the offence, and (iv) circumstances of the offence.<\/p>\n In this context, the Court pointed out that although the case involved a heinous offence and the revisionist was over 16 years old at the time of its commission, the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court had failed to provide the list of witnesses, documents, and the final report to the revisionist or his guardians, as required by law.<\/p>\n This, the Court said, violated the procedure laid down under Section 15 of the Act and Rules 10 and 10-A.<\/p>\n “The Board as well as the Appellate Court have decided the case without any application of mind and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder”, the Court observed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n At this juncture, the Court also added that merely committing a heinous offence does not automatically warrant trying a juvenile as an adult.<\/p>\n The single judge further noted that even though the psychologist’s report was in favour of the revisionist, the same was ignored merely on the ground that the offence was heinous. <\/p>\n “The ‘Nirbhaya case’ was an exception and not a general rule and all juveniles cannot be subjected and tried like adult without proper consideration of the overall social and psychological effects on their psyche”, the Court observed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Consequently, the Court found the orders passed by the courts below to be not justified and thus set them aside.<\/p>\n