The Supreme Court has held that the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) is a "heinous offence" under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, ruling that imprisonment for life constitutes its implied minimum punishment even though the provision does not expressly prescribe a minimum sentence.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the appeal of a juvenile accused in a Bihar murder case, upholding the Patna High Court's decision affirming that he should be tried as an adult before the Children's Court. The Court also clarified that while an appellate court has the power under Section 101(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act to seek assistance from psychologists or medical experts, such assistance is discretionary and not mandatory in every case.

The case arose from the alleged murder of a boy in Bihar in May 2022. The appellant, who was 16 years and four months old at the time of the incident, was accused of slitting the victim's throat with a knife. While the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), by majority, initially held that he lacked the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and decided to retain the matter before itself, the complainant's appeal succeeded before the Sessions Court, which directed that the juvenile be tried as an adult. The Patna High Court upheld that decision.

Before the Supreme Court, the juvenile argued that murder should be treated as a "serious offence" rather than a "heinous offence" because Section 302 IPC prescribes death or life imprisonment without specifying any minimum sentence. He relied on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Shilpa Mittal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and contended that offences carrying no minimum sentence but a maximum exceeding seven years fall within the category of "serious offences".

Rejecting the contention, the bench held that Section 302 IPC cannot be equated with offences where courts have the discretion to impose a sentence below seven years.

"A court convicting an accused of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC cannot impose any lesser sentence than imprisonment for life. The statute does not provide any discretion to the courts to award any punishment below imprisonment for life. Thus, life imprisonment is, by implication, the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 302," the Court observed.

The Court further clarified that the use of the word "or" between "death" and "imprisonment for life" merely gives the court discretion to choose between the two punishments depending on the gravity of the offence and does not mean that there is no minimum punishment. It held that Section 302 therefore falls squarely within the definition of a "heinous offence" under the JJ Act.

The bench also rejected the argument that because Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act prohibits sentencing a child in conflict with law to life imprisonment without the possibility of release, murder should not be classified as a heinous offence. It held that Section 21 affects only the manner in which the sentence is served after conviction and has no bearing on the statutory classification of the offence for determining the forum of trial.

S.101(2) not mandatory

On the scope of Section 101(2) of the JJ Act, the Court held that the Sessions Court's power to obtain assistance from experienced psychologists or medical specialists while deciding an appeal is discretionary. It refused to extend its earlier ruling in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu, which had treated expert assistance under the proviso to Section 15(1) as mandatory in certain circumstances during the JJB's preliminary assessment.

"The Sessions Court may exercise its power under Section 101(2) of the JJ Act where the circumstances occasion the necessity of assistance from an expert," the bench held, adding that the appellate court must decide this based on the facts of each case.

How JJBs Should Conduct Preliminary Assessment Under S.15? Supreme Court Issues Guidelines

The judgment also contains extensive guidance for Juvenile Justice Boards on conducting preliminary assessments under Section 15. The Court emphasised that such assessment is not a trial and that the Board must independently evaluate all relevant material, including the Social Investigation Report, Social Background Report, witness statements and expert reports, while assessing the child's mental capacity, physical capacity, understanding of the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which it was allegedly committed. The Board cannot mechanically rely solely on the opinion of an expert, it said.

Although the Court found that the Juvenile Justice Board in the present case had erred by relying almost exclusively on the expert opinion without adequately considering the Social Investigation Report and Social Background Report, it held that no error of law had been committed by the High Court in affirming the order directing the juvenile to be tried as an adult.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court summarised its conclusions by holding that:

(i) murder under Section 302 IPC is a "heinous offence" because life imprisonment constitutes its minimum punishment;

(ii) expert assistance under Section 101(2) is discretionary and depends on the facts of the case; and

(iii) Juvenile Justice Boards must independently apply their mind to all relevant material while conducting preliminary assessments under Section 15 of the JJ Act

Case Title: X v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Coram: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 702

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Appearances :

For appellant : Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, Advocate

For State : Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Advocate

For Victim : Mr. Prashant Bhardwaj, Advocate