JJ Act | Failure To Conduct Mandatory Reformative Assessment After Child Turns 21 Warrants Suspension Of Sentence: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has 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 constitutes a relevant circumstance for grant of suspension. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 273]

Justice Mandeep Pannu said,

"Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, read with Rule 13 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, would show that where a child in conflict with law is tried as an adult and is kept in a place of safety till attaining the age of twenty-one years, the Children's Court is under a statutory obligation, after the child attains the age of twenty-one years and before he completes the prescribed period of stay, to undertake a fresh evaluation of his reformative progress...assess whether the child...is capable of becoming a contributing member of society, and thereafter pass an appropriate order."

In the present case, the Court highlighted that, the record does not indicate that the aforesaid mandatory exercise contemplated under Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, read with Rule 13(8) (vi) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, has been undertaken by the learned Children's Court after the applicant/appellant attained the age of twenty-one years.

"Since the statute confers valuable rights upon a child in conflict with law at that stage, non-compliance with the said mandatory procedure constitutes a relevant circumstance while considering the prayer for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal."

The applicant-appellant had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Hoshiarpur on 16.03.2023 under Sections 376 IPC/4 of the POCSO Act (10 years RI), and Sections 363, 366 (kidnapping), 354 (outraging modesty) and 452 (trespass( IPC, with sentences to run concurrently. He was a child in conflict with law at the time of the offence but was tried as an adult.

Seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal, the applicant's counsel argued that he had already undergone actual custody, including remissions, of about 3 years, 3 months and 8 days, and that the mandatory procedure under Sections 19 and 20 of the JJ Act, read with Rule 13 of the JJ Model.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the conviction, and considering the custody already undergone, the fact of the applicant being a child in conflict with law, and the apparent non-compliance with the statutory procedure, the Court allowed the application.

The substantive sentence was suspended during pendency of the appeal, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

The Court further directed the Registry to circulate the order to all Presiding Officers of Children's Courts/Special POCSO Courts in Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh, and the Chandigarh Judicial Academy, emphasizing 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.

Appearance: Ms. Divya Menon and Mr. Piyush Khanna, Advocates, for the applicant-appellant;

Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG Punjab, for the State.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX