Aastha Thakur
Published on: 09 October 2022 at 11:55 IST
Delhi HC ruled that taking the confession from a child regarding the way the crime was committed is beyond the scope of the preliminary assessment report prepared under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and is ‘unconstitutional’. [Vikas Sangwan vs State].
The division bench, comprising of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal, stated that such a confession taken from a child by a psychologist should not be encouraged.
Section 15 of the JJ Act provides that a child between the ages of 16-18 can be tried as an adult if he/she has committed a heinous offence. This provision has drawn a line to classify juvenile delinquents in two categories: one is below the age of 16 and the other is above this age.
The JJ Board, before passing its decision, has to strictly conduct a primary assessment of the juvenile’s mental and physical capacity to commit such an offence, to understand the result of the offence committed and the situations under which he committed the crime.
The Court said, “Under Clause 3 of the said report, it can be clearly noted that a confession is sought to be extracted from the child as to the manner in which the offence was committed and the reasons thereof.”
“This manner of seeking a confession from the child is unconstitutional and beyond the scope of a report of preliminary assessment to be prepared under Section 15 of the JJ Act,”
The counsel for intervenor Haq Centre for Child Rights told the court that the preliminary assessment report of child in conflict with law was prepared by a psychologist. The report submitted discloses that the confession of the child was made against its constitutional right, hence its totally compromised.
The observation was made by the Court in the present case with respect to the directions issued by Juvenile Justice Boards for the way of preliminary assessment in case of grave offences committed by juveniles.
Further, it was argued that the investigation and psychological assessment done, was such in nature that even an adult cannot be force to answer under the law when faced with allegations of the commission of a grave offence.
It was further contended that through the psychological examination or inquiry, the child was being asked questions that even an adult cannot be compelled to answer under the law when faced with allegations of the commission of a heinous offence.
The Court noted the same in its order.
The guidelines issued by the Apex Court regarding the report of preliminary assessment in Barun Chandra Thakur vs. Master Bholu & Anr., the Court found that even the questionnaire in relation of the social investigation report prepared for children in conflict with the law under Section 8 of the JJ Act was not correctly interpreted since a presumption is raised at the early stage of the trial proceedings that the child committed the crime.
The case was adjourned till the next hearing on December 7 after noting that such a record still has not been received from the respective JJ Board.
“Though the record from the Court of the learned ASJ has been received, however the record from the learned Juvenile Justice Board has not been received. Registry will call for the record of the Juvenile Justice Board in sealed cover to this Court before the next date of hearing,” the order said.
