Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years

Bombay High Court modified the sentence of a 23-year-old appellant convicted of rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). Justice G.A. Sanap reduced the appellant’s sentence from 10 years to 7 years, citing procedural lapses and a reassessment of applicable penal provisions.
The appellant, Aman Tagade, was 17 years and 9 months old when he was accused of forcibly sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl on May 20, 2016. While the lower court convicted him under Section 376(2) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the High Court revised his conviction to Section 376(1) IPC, noting that the evidence supported a less severe classification of the offense.
The appellant challenged his conviction on procedural grounds, arguing that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) had erroneously transferred him for trial as an adult without proper assessment under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The defense alleged that the JJB failed to mandate a psychological evaluation by a clinical psychologist, as suggested in the psychiatrist’s report, and that the decision to treat him as an adult was inadequately reasoned.
However, the Court upheld the JJB's order, observing that the appellant’s defense at the time of trial neither raised objections to this decision nor pursued an appeal. Justice Sanap stated, “The JJB conducted a full-fledged preliminary assessment considering the heinous nature of the crime, the appellant’s age, physical capacity, and mental ability to understand the consequences of his actions. The appellant’s failure to challenge this order earlier renders the argument untenable at this stage.”

The incident occurred when the victim, a 12th-standard student, visited the appellant’s house after receiving a message through mutual acquaintances that he wanted to discuss study-related matters. Once inside, the appellant allegedly locked the door, increased the volume of the television, and committed a sexual assault despite the victim’s resistance. The victim immediately informed her parents, and an FIR was filed within hours of the incident.
The trial court relied on the victim’s testimony and corroborating medical evidence, including injuries observed on her body and private parts. Justice Sanap upheld the trial court’s finding that the victim’s testimony was “of sterling quality” and consistent with the prosecution's case.
While maintaining the conviction, the High Court revised the sentence, noting that the charge under Section 376(2) IPC (aggravated rape) was not substantiated. Instead, the offense fell under Section 376(1), which provides a minimum sentence of 7 years. Justice Sanap remarked, “Considering the appellant’s age at the time of the offense and the circumstances of the case, a 7-year imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.”
The Court underscored the sensitivity of handling cases involving sexual offenses, particularly under the POCSO Act. Citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, Justice Sanap remarked, “Rarely will a girl in India fabricate allegations of sexual assault, given the social stigma and personal consequences involved. The victim’s conduct and immediate reporting lend credibility to her testimony.”
The Bombay High Court’s decision reflects a careful balancing of procedural integrity and substantive justice in juvenile cases involving heinous crimes. The modification of the sentence highlights the judiciary’s commitment to fairness while upholding the gravity of sexual offenses.

Date of Decision: October 3, 2024.