Read Time: 09 minutes
“To contend that a child can be tried in court along with an adult would render the prohibition under Section 23 of JJ Act nugatory, otiose and redundant, which cannot be permitted”, the court emphasized.
The Delhi High Court recently, in a petition seeking to halt the joint trial of a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) alongside an adult accused, held that joint trials could not be conducted between a CCL and an adult offender. The bench of Justice Anish Dayal held, “there can be no doubt that joint trials ought not to be held between a child in conflict with law (being tried as an adult) and an adult offender”.
The case stemmed after information was received information regarding an incident at Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Sultanpuri Road, Delhi. SI Mahesh Kumar and his team arrived at the scene and discovered blood at the main gate and classroom 108. Injured teacher Mukesh Kumar had been taken to Sri Balaji Hospital, where he was admitted with stab wounds allegedly inflicted by students Vivek Kumar Jha and Master K. The teacher succumbed to his injuries, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 302 IPC. The accused were apprehended, and their trial commenced in the Children’s Court.
The main issue was: “Whether trial proceedings of a ‘child’ alleged to be in conflict with law and a person ‘not a child’, i.e. an adult, could be held jointly, after a preliminary assessment of Juvenile Justice Board (‘JJB’) declaring the ‘child in conflict with law’ (‘CCL’) to be psychologically and physically mature”.
The court emphasized that while a child tried as an adult could face stricter legal consequences, this did not equate to being tried alongside an adult. The law made a clear distinction between trying a child "as an adult" and "with an adult," and conflating the two violated the JJ Act’s mandate.
“The material provisions of a statute must be interpreted in their plain grammatical meaning and that S. 23 (1) of JJ Act unambiguously provides that “there shall be no joint proceedings of a child alleged to be in conflict with law, with a person who is not a child”. The plain meaning of Section 23 of JJ Act bars joint proceedings, including trial, of CCLs with adult offenders and there is no statutory provision that suggests a contrary interpretation”, the court outlined.
Additionally, the court noted that the non-obstante clause in Section 23 of the JJ Act overrode Section 223 of the CrPC, which typically allowed joint charges for accused individuals involved in the same offence. Since the JJ Act differentiated between a ‘child in conflict with the law’ and an ‘adult,’ separate trials were mandatory once a minor was identified. The age determination process, guided by Section 9(2) of the JJ Act and Rule 10A of the JJ Rules, reaffirmed this distinction.
The court observed that “the provision therefore, contemplates two distinct categories of persons, one a ‘child in conflict with law’ who necessarily must have not completed 18 years at the date of offence and a person who is not a child i.e. who is 18 years and above. These categories are clear in the scope and definition and since they are benchmarked on completion of an age of 18 years, the categorization of any offender, as being either a ‘CCL’ or ‘not a child’ is quite evident, clear, and obvious. In fact, the word ‘adult’ is not defined in the said Act”.
The phrase "as an adult" in Section 18(3) only referred to the nature of the proceedings but did not alter the petitioner’s legal status as a child. The impugned order, which had permitted joint proceedings, was found to be in direct conflict with the JJ Act’s protective intent. The court emphasized that beneficial legislation like the JJ Act should be interpreted to uphold its rehabilitative purpose.
Given these legal principles, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Despite much of the trial having already taken place, the court held that legal compliance took precedence over procedural delays. The court set aside the impugned order, allowing the revision petition and directing that the trial of the petitioner be conducted separately from the adult co-accused.
For Petitioner: Advocates Ashim Sood, Ashish Kumar, Prateek Kundu, Yamina Rizvi, Ragini Nagpal, Isha Khurana, Ashish Panday, Ekansh Gupta, Ankur Singhal and SubramaniamFor Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Aman UsmanCase Title: CCL ‘K’ v State (2025:DHC:1386)
Please Login or Register
