A v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2025
It was Examined offences alleged and noted that none prescribed a minimum sentence of 7 years, which is required for classification as “heinous offence” under JJ Act.
Judgement Details
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
4 November 2025
Judges
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
- Two juveniles were accused of multiple offences under IPC, POCSO, and IT Act, including attempt to commit rape, sexual harassment, stalking, extortion, abetment of suicide, and online distribution of sexually explicit content.
-
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) initially decided to conduct trial against the juveniles as juveniles.
-
The appellate court (Special Judge, POCSO Cases) remitted the case to the Children’s Court to try the juveniles as “adult accused,” citing the seriousness of the offences.
-
The juveniles filed revision petitions before the Rajasthan High Court challenging this order.
Issues
-
Whether the offences committed by the juveniles qualify as “heinous offences” under Section 2(33) of the JJ Act?
-
Whether juveniles aged 16–18 can be tried as “adult accused” in the Children’s Court?
-
Interpretation of “minimum sentence” required to classify an offence as heinous?
-
Applicability of Section 15 (trial as adult) and Section 18(3) (preliminary assessment of capacity) of the JJ Act?
Judgement
-
None of the alleged offences qualified as heinous offences (minimum 7-year sentence not prescribed).
-
Section 15 provisions allowing trial as adult were not applicable.
-
Appellate court order remitting case to Children’s Court was set aside.
-
Matter remitted back to Juvenile Justice Board for trial as juveniles, following JJ Act procedures.
Held
-
Juveniles could not be tried as adults since alleged offences do not meet the “heinous offence” criteria.
-
The JJ Act provisions for transferring juveniles to adult trial apply only to offences with minimum prescribed punishment of 7 years or more.
-
Juveniles below 18 years are to be tried under JJB with a focus on rehabilitation, unless they commit defined heinous offences.
-
Heinous offence classification depends on minimum prescribed punishment, not potential maximum sentence.
-
Children are treated differently from adults under the JJ Act to balance accountability and rehabilitation.
-
Preliminary assessment of mental and physical capacity is required for 16–18-year-olds before considering trial as adult.
-
Legislative intent ensures proportional treatment of offences: petty < serious < heinous.
-
The decision reinforces juvenile-centric approach in criminal justice.
Analysis
-
It was Examined offences alleged and noted that none prescribed a minimum sentence of 7 years, which is required for classification as “heinous offence” under JJ Act.
-
The court Cited Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi (2020): offences without minimum sentence of 7 years cannot be treated as heinous offences.
-
It was Clarified that while maximum punishment could exceed 7 years, minimum sentence matters for classification.
-
It was Emphasized the legislative intent:
-
JJ Act differentiates between petty offences, serious offences, and heinous offences to ensure appropriate treatment for children.
-
Children under 18 are generally rehabilitated, except 16–18-year-olds who commit heinous offences after preliminary assessment.
-
-
It was highlighted importance of maturity assessment:
-
Mental and physical development varies between children aged 16–18.
-
Extent of criminal intent and gravity of offence differ per individual.
-