The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a 16-year-old accused, confirming the decision to try him as an adult for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case stems from the alleged rape of a seven-year-old girl in February 2021.
हिंदी में पढ़ें
According to the prosecution, the victim’s father was away when she visited the accused’s house to play. Later, she complained of stomach pain and revealed that the accused had taken her to a cowshed, raped her, and then repeated the act at his home. He cleaned the blood and threatened her not to tell anyone. Medical examination supported her account.
Read Also:- Patna High Court Acquits Juvenile in Rape Case, Highlights Violations of Juvenile Justice Principles
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Medical Board found the accused’s IQ to be 92, indicating adequate mental capacity to understand the consequences of his actions. The medical report showed no physical incapacity, and the social investigation report confirmed he lived in a healthy family environment with no signs of neglect. Based on these findings, the JJB referred the matter to the Children’s Court to try him as an adult.
The accused appealed, arguing the assessment exceeded the three-month limit in Section 14(3) of the JJ Act and that only mental capacity was evaluated. Both the appellate court and the High Court rejected this, citing Supreme Court precedent that the three-month period is directory, not mandatory, in heinous offence cases.
Quoting the Supreme Court in X (Juvenile) v. State of Karnataka (2024), the High Court noted:
Read Also:- Orissa HC Criticizes Special Court for Misclassifying Adult Accused as Juvenile in POCSO Case
“The time period in Section 14(3) cannot be held mandatory as no consequences for failure are prescribed for heinous offences.”
The Court highlighted the accused’s repeated assaults, efforts to hide evidence, and threats as proof of calculated actions and awareness of the consequences. Referring to Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), it held that rape cannot be committed without specific knowledge of the act.
Case Title: V (a juvenile) V. State of H.P.
Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 392 of 2025
