Failure to Conduct Mandatory Assessment After 21 Warrants Suspension of Sentence

Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court 

Why in News? 

A Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Justice Mandeep Pannu, suspended the sentence of a POCSO convict during the pendency of his appeal, holding that non-compliance with the mandatory reformative-assessment procedure under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) constitutes a relevant circumstance for grant of suspension.  

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The applicant-appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Hoshiarpur, on 16th March 2023, under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366, 354 (outraging modesty) and 452 (trespass) of the IPC. 
• He was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act, with the sentences under all counts directed to run concurrently. 
• The applicant was a child in conflict with law at the time of commission of the offence but was tried as an adult. 
• He sought suspension of sentence pending appeal, contending that he had already undergone actual custody, including remissions, of about 3 years, 3 months and 8 days. 
• It was further argued that the mandatory procedure under Sections 19 and 20 of the JJ Act, read with Rule 13 of the JJ Model Rules, 2016, had not been complied with by the Children's Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Statutory Obligation Under the JJ Act: The Court held that Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the JJ Act, read with Rule 13 of the JJ Model Rules, 2016, show that where a child in conflict with law is tried as an adult and kept in a place of safety till attaining the age of 21 years, the Children's Court is under a statutory obligation, after the child turns 21 and before completing the prescribed period of stay, to undertake a fresh evaluation of his reformative progress and assess whether he is capable of becoming a contributing member of society. 
• On Non-Compliance in the Present Case: The Court found that the record did not indicate that this mandatory exercise under Section 20 of the JJ Act, read with Rule 13(8)(vi) of the JJ Model Rules, 2016, had been undertaken by the Children's Court after the applicant attained the age of 21 years. 
• On the Effect of Non-Compliance: The Court held that since the statute confers valuable rights upon a child in conflict with law at that stage, non-compliance with this mandatory procedure is a relevant circumstance while considering a prayer for suspension of sentence pending appeal. 
• On Relief Granted: Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the conviction, and having regard to the custody already undergone, the applicant's status as a child in conflict with law, and the apparent non-compliance with the statutory procedure, the Court allowed the application and suspended the substantive sentence during pendency of the appeal, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 
• Directions to Children's Courts: The Court directed the Registry to circulate the order to all Presiding Officers of Children's Courts/Special POCSO Courts in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, and to the Chandigarh Judicial Academy, emphasising that strict compliance with Sections 19 and 20 of the JJ Act and Rule 13 of the Model Rules is essential to achieve the reformative object of the legislation. 

What is the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015? 

About: 

• The JJ Act, 2015 consolidates and amends the law relating to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law, and children in need of care and protection. 
• It provides for their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment and social re-integration, adopting a child-friendly approach in adjudication and disposal of matters in their best interest. 
• It also provides for a special approach in the case of a "child in conflict with law" who is alleged or found to have committed an offence, keeping the reformative and rehabilitative objective central to the framework. 

Key Provisions Relevant to this Case: 

• Section 19 – Empowers the Children's Court to pass orders in respect of a child in conflict with law tried as an adult, including orders for placement in a place of safety till the child completes 21 years of age, followed by a fresh assessment. 
• Section 20 – Mandates a periodic follow-up by the Children's Court to evaluate whether a child in a place of safety has undergone reformative changes and is fit to be reintegrated into society, on attaining 21 years of age. 
• Section 21 – Bars the imposition of the death penalty or life imprisonment without the possibility of release on a child in conflict with law. 
• Rule 13 of the JJ Model Rules, 2016 – Prescribes the procedure for the periodic follow-up and reformative assessment of a child in a place of safety, including the specific evaluation required under Rule 13(8)(vi) upon the child attaining 21 years of age.