Allahabad High Court protects minors from adult prosecution, points to dangers of digital age
16-year-old boy accused of sexually assaulting and causing abortion
A consensual physical relationship between the boy and a 14-year-old girl led to pregnancy. When the girl was five months pregnant, the boy, with the help of two adults, allegedly gave her a drug that caused a miscarriage.
“The image of an old child in good old days is being replaced by the modern-day image of a violent predator,” the Allahabad High Court said, intervening and stopping adults from prosecuting a 16-year-old boy accused of sexually assaulting and causing an abortion.
Citing with approval the observations of the Bombay High Court on the psychological effects of uncontrolled digital exposure, the court observed, “Television, internet and social media have allowed children, especially adolescents, to jump into the world of adults… often by accident, with disastrous consequences.”
The observations came as Justice Siddharth allowed a criminal revision filed by a minor, identified as Juvenile X, against the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the special POCSO court in Kaushambi. The orders directed him to be tried as an adult for a “heinous offence”.
A consensual physical relationship developed between the minor and the 14-year-old girl, leading to pregnancy. When the girl was five months pregnant, the boy, with the help of two adults, allegedly administered an abortifacient drug. He was booked under POCSO and the JJB conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, deciding that he should face trial as an adult.
However, the high court found that the procedure adopted by the board and the POCSO court was not in accordance with the law.
The boy underwent a psychological assessment which revealed a mental age of six and an IQ of 66, indicating mild intellectual disability. He struggled academically, had poor social interaction and scored in the borderline to mild clinical range on behavioural tests. Despite these findings, the JJB rejected the report and based its decision largely on the allegations and the victim’s statement.
“This court finds that the psychologist’s report was in favour of the correctional officer… with a score of 62, the correctional officer falls in the borderline category, which is below the low/below average category,” the court said, adding that “he is not competent and has taken the decision to administer medication to the victim alone.”
“An order under Section 15… not only confers a different legal status on a minor… but also removes the beneficial provisions under the Juvenile Justice Act,” Justice Siddharth observed. The court stressed that such an order must be the result of “a critical judicial examination” and should not be a mere endorsement of assumptions about the content or purpose of the FIR.
Criticising what it described as the “mechanical” application of Section 15, the court said, “A vindictive approach towards minors should be avoided unless there are exceptional circumstances… No child should be condemned unless his fate is predetermined by his own destructive behaviour.”
The orders of the JJP and POCSO courts were set aside, and the high court ordered that the boy be tried as a minor under the special procedure laid down in the Juvenile Justice Act.
