Court Emphasizes Strict Compliance with Juvenile Justice Act's Two-Stage Process Before Trying Child as Adult; Adult Trial Without Section 19 Determination Declared Illegal
In a landmark judgment dated September 30, 2026, the Orissa High Court has acquitted Pitabas Sahu, who was convicted for aggravated sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, for trial irregularities relating to juvenile justice safeguards. The appellant, aged about 17 at the time of the alleged offences, was subjected to an adult criminal trial without compliance with the mandatory two-stage statutory safeguards under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("the 2015 Act").
The appellant was initially charged under Sections 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 450, 376(2)(i), and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment. However, the Orissa High Court found that the trial court failed to comply with the crucial procedural protections designed to safeguard children in conflict with law.
The 2015 Act requires a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) under Section 15 to determine if a child above 16 years accused of a heinous offence should be tried as an adult. Following this, Section 18(3) allows the Board to transfer the case to a Children's Court for trial as an adult. However, the Children's Court itself must independently assess under Section 19 whether the child needs to be tried as an adult or whether the case should revert to the Board for inquiry.
In this case, although the JJB ordered the transfer of the case for adult trial, the Children's Court did not independently record its satisfaction as required under Section 19 before framing charges and conducting the trial. The Court highlighted that this independent determination is not an empty formality but a mandatory jurisdictional safeguard. Failure to undertake this statutory exercise vitiates the entire adult trial and conviction.
Relying on recent Supreme Court precedents including Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu (2023) 12 SCC 401 and Ajeet Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 Livelaw SC 857), the Orissa High Court reiterated that the statutory two-stage safeguard protects juveniles from being prematurely subjected to adult criminal trials. The Court emphasized that the word "may" in Section 19 does not confer discretion to dispense with the independent assessment but only relates to the course of action after the assessment.
Additionally, the Court affirmed that the offences alleged spanned a period continuing after the 2015 Act came into force on January 15, 2016, making the 2015 Act applicable. It held that for repeated offences, the juvenile status must be determined as on the date of the last incident.
The Court acknowledged the gravity of the offences and the victim's trauma but underscored that such seriousness cannot justify bypassing the statutory procedural safeguards enacted to protect children in conflict with law. The judgment stressed that the greater the consequences of transferring a juvenile to the adult system, the more stringent the compliance with the legal safeguards must be.
Consequently, the Orissa High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant. The Court also awarded Rs. 7,500 as honorarium to the learned Amicus Curiae for his effective assistance.
This decision reinforces the protective and rehabilitative ethos underlying the Juvenile Justice Act and clarifies the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards before trying a juvenile as an adult in serious criminal cases.
Bottom Line:
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Child in conflict with law cannot be subjected to adult criminal trial unless mandatory two-stage safeguard is followed - Even after Juvenile Justice Board transfers case under Section 18(3), Children's Court must independently determine under Section 19 whether there is need to try child as adult - Absence of such determination vitiates entire adult trial and conviction.
Statutory provision(s):
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Sections 15, 18(3), 19; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 6; Indian Penal Code Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n)
Pitabas Sahu v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990591
