News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 14
Bilaspur, 05.01.2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children’s Court in a 2017 murder case, holding that a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act is mandatory in cases involving heinous offences. The Court ruled that failure to conduct such an assessment has caused prejudice not only to the juvenile accused but also to the victim and the complainant.
The order was passed by Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal while allowing a criminal revision filed by Vishnu Rohra, brother of the deceased. Rohra had challenged the rejection of his application seeking a preliminary assessment of one of the accused juveniles to determine whether he should be tried as an adult.
The case relates to the alleged assault and murder of Arjun in Raigarh on September 27, 2017. According to the prosecution, the deceased was brutally attacked by a group of accused persons, including two juveniles, resulting in his death on the same day. An FIR was registered and charges were framed under multiple serious provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including murder.
The juveniles were produced before the Juvenile Justice Board in September 2017. However, no preliminary assessment was conducted at that stage to evaluate their mental and physical capacity to commit the offence, as required under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. An application seeking such an assessment was later filed by the complainant, but it was rejected on the ground that a long lapse of time made such evaluation impossible. The Children’s Court upheld that view in appeal.
Disagreeing with both forums, the High Court held that in cases involving heinous offences punishable with seven years’ imprisonment or more, the Board is duty-bound to conduct a preliminary assessment soon after the juvenile is produced before it. The Court emphasised that trying a child as an adult is an exception, and such a course can be adopted only after strict compliance with statutory safeguards.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, which clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial but a crucial step to determine whether the juvenile possesses the maturity and capacity to understand the consequences of the alleged offence.
Finding that no such assessment had ever been carried out in the present case, the High Court quashed the orders dated February 8, 2023, and April 29, 2023. It remitted the matter back to the Juvenile Justice Board, directing it to conduct a fresh preliminary assessment strictly in accordance with law within two months. The Board has also been given liberty to seek expert psychological or other reports and has been directed to ensure fair and effective participation of the juvenile during the inquiry.
With these observations, the criminal revision was allowed, reaffirming that procedural safeguards under juvenile justice law cannot be bypassed, even after the passage of time.
Case Reference : CRR No. 653 of 2023, Vishnu Rohra S/o Lt. Hasanand Rohra vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Counsels : For Applicant : Shri Harsh Varma, Advocate on behalf of Shri Rahul Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms Binu Sharma, PL For Respondent-3 : Ms Apurva Nigam, Advocate on behalf of Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent-2 : None appears though served
