The Punjab and Haryana High Court has flagged a ‘shocking’ mishandling of witness statements by the judge

The appellant argued that the order issued by a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which declared him fit to be tried as an adult, was defective because it did not meet the requirements set out in Article 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act (Care and protection of children). ) Law, 2015.

In this regard, his counsel emphasized that the JJB had not conducted any psychological assessment of the then 17-year-old appellant.

The appellant further submitted that after the JJB passed the order, it was essential that the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, conduct a proper investigation in accordance with Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, to assess whether the minor is aware of the consequences of his actions and whether he should be tried as an adult.

The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the decision of the JJB and the trial court to try the appellant as an adult was flawed and invalid.