ORDER : 1. This criminal revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 3-9-2021 passed by the Children's Court/Upper Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, (POCSO Act), Sarguja, Ambikapur in Cr. A. No. 12/2021 upholding the order dated 26-2-2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Board') in Criminal Case No. 35/2020 whereby, after making preliminary assessment as required under the provisions of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2015'), aforesaid criminal case has been transferred to Special Court/Children’s Court, Ambikapur for trial of the applicant/juvenile as an adult under Section 18(3) of the Act, 2015. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12-3-2020, complainant lodged missing report at PS Sitapur, Distt. Sarguja that her granddaughter aged about 6 years is missing since about 1.30 pm of 11.3.2020. On 16-3-2020, dead body of missing girl was found in the well situated in the yard of the house of applicant, who is neighbour of the complainant. Dead body of the deceased was taken out from the well, inquest and post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was done, wherein it was reported that tongue of the deceased came out from her mouth and injury was also found in her private part. Hence, on being query made by the police, the doctor opined that tongue of the deceased came out due to throttling, and injury in private part (vagina) may be caused due to forced physical relation made with her. Earlier, FIR for offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against unknown person. After post mortem report, offence under Section 342, 376 ¼d½¼[k½ 304, 201 of the IPC, Section 5- n , 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, were added. During investigation, it was revealed that on 12-3-2020, the applicant juvenile took the deceased in his house, raped her and killed her by throttling her neck, thereafter he kept the dead body of the deceased at a lonely place of his house. On 15-3-2020, when foul smell was coming from the dead body, on being inquired by father of the applicant-juvenile, he told him about the incident, thereafter they threw the dead body into the well. On 15-3-2020, when foul smell was coming from the dead body, on being inquired by father of the applicant-juvenile, he told him about the incident, thereafter they threw the dead body into the well. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant before the Board for offence under Section 363, 342, 376(a)(b), 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(d) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act') 3. The Board called social investigation report (Panel report) and after submission of social investigation report and after considering the age of the applicant on the date of incident, which was 16 years, 6 months and 13 days, and considering heinousness of the crime, the Board held that the applicant had developed mental and physical capacity to understand the result of crime and the circumstances under which the offence has been committed, therefore, the Board found that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult by Children's Court. 4. In appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 12/2021), preferred by the applicant-juvenile under Section 101 of the Act, 2015, learned Children's Court/Upper Sessions Judge, FTSC, (POCSO Act), Sarguja, Ambikapur has held that although, it has been stated that mental status of the applicant-juvenile is lacking in the social investigation report (which she has noted as psychological report) and it does not reveal as to what was the state of mind of the applicant-juvenile at the time of incident, despite that, the learned appellate Court upheld the order passed by the Board. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Board has not conducted any inquiry in respect of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, 2015. The statutory provisions contained under Section 15 of the Act for conducting preliminary assessment to assess the mental and physical capacity of the juvenile, in conflict with law, to commit a heinous offence and ability to understand the consequences of said offence and also the circumstances, under which, he allegedly committed the offence, were not followed. He further submits that the social investigation report, only on the basis of which the impugned order was passed by the Board, was neither supplied to the applicant-juvenile nor to his parents, and opportunity of hearing has also not been provided to them. 6. He further submits that the social investigation report, only on the basis of which the impugned order was passed by the Board, was neither supplied to the applicant-juvenile nor to his parents, and opportunity of hearing has also not been provided to them. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant-juvenile that the purpose of preliminary assessment of the juvenile is to find out the physical and mental capacity of the juvenile, ability to understand the consequences of the offence committed by him and also the circumstances, under which, he had committed the alleged offence. In this regard, as per Section 15 of the Act, 2015, the Board can take the assistance of any psychologist or any other expert, but in the instant case, no such assistance has been taken by the Board. 7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant-juvenile that the Board has completely ignored the provisions of the Act, 2015, as also rules of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Model Rules' 2016). It is lastly submitted that the aforesaid three parameters for making preliminary assessment are necessary to be followed, but said parameters have not been considered/followed, as no such finding has been given by the Board so as to reach to the conclusion that the juvenile was well aware about the consequences of the offence committed by him and his mental and physical capacity was such that he was well aware about the nature of offence and the consequences thereof. The orders under challenge have been passed by the Board as well as the Children's Court only on the basis of social investigation report dated 18-2-2021 prepared by the Counselor and relying on that report and considering the manner in which the crime has been committed, the Board and the Children's Court have passed the impugned orders, which are perverse, erroneous and contrary to law. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order. It is further submitted that taking advantage of loneliness in the house, the applicant-juvenile called the deceased girl, who was aged about 6 years, raped her and killed her, thereafter, he hid the dead body in a place of his house, where no one goes often. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order. It is further submitted that taking advantage of loneliness in the house, the applicant-juvenile called the deceased girl, who was aged about 6 years, raped her and killed her, thereafter, he hid the dead body in a place of his house, where no one goes often. He also involved himself in search of the deceased along with her family members and when foul smell was coming from the dead body, he threw the dead body into the well. All these facts show his mental and physical capacity to commit such heinous offence and also his understanding to the consequence of the offence. Hence, the Board as well as the Children's Court have not committed any error in passing the impugned order. 9. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the original record of the case as well as the material available on record, carefully. 10. Earlier the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was in force under which, all children below 18 years of age were to be treated as juvenile and tried by the Board, but after enactment of Act, 2015, further category was created i.e. juvenile between 16 to 18 years of age involved in heinous offence. They were subjected to a preliminary assessment to ascertain whether they are to be tried as a child by the Board or to be tried as an adult by the Children's Court. In this regard, separate provisions i.e Sections 14(3), 14(5)(f), 15 and 18(3) have been enacted in the said legislation so as to make a special provision for such juvenile. 11. In the Act, 2015, 3 parameters as provided under Section 15 of the Act, 2015 have been set-out, which are required to be strictly followed and determined so as to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the child is to be tried as an adult or not. That exercise is called as ‘Preliminary Assessment’. Those parameters are as under:— (i) mental and physical capacity to commit such offence; (ii) ability to understand the consequences of the offence; (iii) the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence. 12. Parameters (i) and (ii) are inter-related as the ability to understand the consequences of the offence would only be there, in case the child has the mental capacity to do so. 12. Parameters (i) and (ii) are inter-related as the ability to understand the consequences of the offence would only be there, in case the child has the mental capacity to do so. For assessing the mental capacity, the Board has been given the liberty to take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts. However, it has been explained that the preliminary assessment is not a trial. Sections 14(3), 14(5)(f) as well as Section 15 and 18(3) are reproduced as under:— “Section 14. Inquiry by Board regarding child in conflict with law. xxx xxx xxx 3. A preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences under section 15 shall be disposed of by the Board within a period of three months from the date of first production of the child before the Board. xxx xxx xxx 5. The Board shall take the following steps to ensure fair and speedy inquiry, namely:— xxx xxx xxx f. inquiry of heinous offences i. For child below the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be disposed of by the Board under clause (e); ii. For child above the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be dealt with in the manner prescribed under Section 15. Section 15 : - Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board- (1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequence of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 18. Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced Psychologist or psycho-social workers or other experts. Explanation - For the purpose of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequence of the alleged offence. Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced Psychologist or psycho-social workers or other experts. Explanation - For the purpose of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequence of the alleged offence. (2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should be disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be appealable under sub-section (2) of Section 101. Provided further that the assessment under the section shall be completed within the period of specified in Section 14.” “Section 18(3):— 3. Where the Board after preliminary assessment under section 15 pass an order that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult, then the Board may order transfer of the trial of the case to the Children's Court having jurisdiction to try such offences.” 13. Rule 10-A of the Model Rules, 2016 provides for the preliminary assessment into heinous offences by the Board, which is also reproduced hereunder:— “10A. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board.- (1) The Board shall in the first instance determine whether the child is of sixteen years of age or above; if not, it shall proceed as per provisions of section 14 of the Act. (2) For the purpose of conducting a preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences, the Board may take the assistance of psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts who have experience of working with children in difficult circumstances. A panel of such experts may be made available by the District Child Protection Unit, whose assistance can be taken by the Board or could be accessed independently. (3) While making the preliminary assessment, the child shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise. (4) Where the Board, after preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, passes an order that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult, it shall assign reasons for the same and the copy of the order shall be provided to the child forthwith.” 14. (4) Where the Board, after preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, passes an order that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult, it shall assign reasons for the same and the copy of the order shall be provided to the child forthwith.” 14. Section 8(3)(a) of the Act, 2015 which prescribes the functions and responsibilities of the Board stipulates in sub-Section (a) is reiterated as under:— “(a) ensuring the informed participation of the child and parent or guardian, in every step of the process.” 15. In the instant case, as per the Board and the Children's Court, the offence falls within the category of heinous offence and the applicant, being more than 16 years of age on the date of commission of offence, is required to be dealt with as per provisions of Section 15 of the Act, 2015 for the purpose of making preliminary assessment. Learned counsel for the applicant – juvenile argued that the Board has not conducted the preliminary assessment as per provisions of the Act and Model Rules. A conjoint reading of both Rules 10, 10A inconsonance with Section 14, 15 and 18(3) would reveal that the path to be tread upon by the Board, after production of the Juvenile has been clearly spelt-out where heinous offence has been alleged to be committed by a juvenile, who has completed 16 years of age. 16. In the case of CBI -v- Master Bholu and Anr. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 870), Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered preliminary assessment as provided in Section 15 of the Act, 2015, and observed in para 62 to 73 as under :- “PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 62. The obligation of the Board in making the preliminary assessment on the four counts mentioned in section 15 of the Act is largely dependent upon the wisdom of the Board without there being any guidelines as to how the Board would conduct such preliminary assessment. In the absence of any such framework or guidelines, the Board has to use its discretion in taking into consideration whatever material it deems fit for assessing the four attributes. In the absence of any such framework or guidelines, the Board has to use its discretion in taking into consideration whatever material it deems fit for assessing the four attributes. (a) In the present case, the Board and the Children's Court, relying upon the statement given by the child at the time of first appearance before the Board, the second statement given by the child at a later stage, the SIR and the report of the psychologist indicating an IQ level of 95, have held that the respondent had the mental capacity to commit the offence. (b) Insofar as the physical capacity is concerned, the Board and the Children's Court have taken into consideration the built of the child and his age to hold that he had the physical capacity to commit the nature of the alleged assault. (c) The Board relied upon the fact that the respondent was studying in class 11th; he had stated that he is physically and mentally fit and not suffering from any disease; his IQ level shows that he is mentally fit and as such it cannot be said that he did not know the consequences of the alleged offence to be committed by him. From the statement of the respondent recorded during his personal assessment, it was indicated that he was mature enough. All these facts satisfied the Board that the respondent was having sufficient maturity and ability to understand the consequences of his action. (d) The order of the Board does not anywhere refer to its assessment regarding the circumstances in which the respondent allegedly committed the offence. However, what appears is that the Board relied upon the SIR. 63. In the present case, the Board and the Children's Court relied heavily on the psychologist's report which only reflected the IQ of the respondent to be of average level bearing a score of 95 to hold that the respondent had the mental capacity to commit the offence and also ability to know the consequences of the offence. The Board and the Children's Court both have also recorded that the recommendation of the psychologist to send the respondent for further assessment to the Institute of Mental Health, University of Health Sciences, Rohtak was not necessary as, according to them, the IQ findings were sufficient for them to arrive at the preliminary assessment. 64. The Board and the Children's Court both have also recorded that the recommendation of the psychologist to send the respondent for further assessment to the Institute of Mental Health, University of Health Sciences, Rohtak was not necessary as, according to them, the IQ findings were sufficient for them to arrive at the preliminary assessment. 64. Section 15 and Rule 10A provide that the Board may take the assistance of psychologists, psychosocial workers, or other experts who had experience of working with children in difficult circumstances. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the word ‘may’ should be read as ‘may’ only i.e., the Board in its discretion may or may not take the assistance of such experts whereas on behalf of the respondent, it has been strenuously contended that the word ‘may’ should be read as ‘shall’ and it should be mandatory for the Board to take opinion or assistance from such experts before passing an order of preliminary assessment. This aspect is dealt with at a later stage. 65. While considering a child as an adult one needs to look at his/her physical maturity, cognitive abilities, social and emotional competencies. It must be mentioned here that from a neurobiological perspective, the development of cognitive, behavioural attributes like the ability to delay gratification, decision making, risk taking, impulsivity, judgement, etc. continues until the early 20s. It is, therefore, all the more important that such assessment is made to distinguish such attributes between a child and an adult. 66. Cognitive maturation is highly dependent on hereditary factors. Emotional development is less likely to affect cognitive maturation. However, if emotions are too intense and the child is unable to regulate emotions effectively, then intellectual insight/knowledge may take a back seat. 67. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the High Court that further assessment ought to have been carried out once the psychologist had recommended so and had also suggested the name of the institute. The Board and the Children's Court apparently were of the view that the mental capacity and the ability to understand the consequences of the offence were one and the same, that is to say that if the child had the mental capacity to commit the offence, then he automatically had the capacity to understand the consequences of the offence. This, in our considered opinion, is a grave error committed by them. 68. This, in our considered opinion, is a grave error committed by them. 68. The language used in section 15 is “the ability to understand the consequences of the offence”. The expression used is in plurality i.e., “consequences” of the offence and, therefore, would not just be confined to the immediate consequence of the offence or that the occurrence of the offence would only have its consequence upon the victim but it would also take within its ambit the consequences which may fall upon not only the victim as a result of the assault, but also on the family of the victim, on the child, his family, and that too not only immediate consequences but also the far-reaching consequences in future. Consequences could be in material/physical form but also affecting the mind and the psychology of the child for all times to come. The consequences of the offence could be numerous and manifold which cannot be just linked to a framework; and, for this purpose, the overall picture as also future consequences with reference to the facts of the case are required to be consciously analysed by the Board. 69. Consequences for the victim could be his death, or permanent physical disability, or an injury which could be repaired or recovered; the impact of the offence on the mind of the victim may be prolonged and continue for his lifetime; the impact on the family and friends of the victim, both mental and financial; consequence on the child going into incarceration; mental impact on the child, it could be repentance or remorse for life, the social stigma cast on the child and his family members; the consequences of litigating and so many other things which would be difficult to adumbrate. 70. A child with average intelligence/IQ will have the intellectual knowledge of the consequences of his actions. But whether or not he is able to control himself or his actions will depend on his level of emotional competence. For example, risky driving may result in an accident. But if emotional competence is not high, the urge for thrill seeking may get the better of his intellectual understanding. 71. Children may be geared towards more instant gratification and may not be able to deeply understand the long-term consequences of their actions. They are also more likely to be influenced by emotion rather than reason. But if emotional competence is not high, the urge for thrill seeking may get the better of his intellectual understanding. 71. Children may be geared towards more instant gratification and may not be able to deeply understand the long-term consequences of their actions. They are also more likely to be influenced by emotion rather than reason. Research shows that young people do know risks to themselves. Despite this knowledge, adolescents engage in riskier behaviour than adults (such as drug and alcohol use, unsafe sexual activity, dangerous driving and/or delinquent behaviour). While they do consider risks cognitively (by weighing up the potential risks and rewards of a particular act), their decisions/actions may be more heavily influenced by social (e.g. peer influences) and/or emotional (e.g. impulsive) tendencies. In addition, the lack of experience coupled with the child's limited ability to deeply understand the long-term consequences of their actions can lead to impulsive/reckless decision making. 72. Coming to the last count, i.e., the assessment regarding the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to be committed is again an attribute which could have many factors to be considered before such an assessment could be made. There could be a number of reasons for a person to commit a crime. It could be enmity, it could be poverty, it could be greed, it could be perversity in mind and many others. There could be coercion. There could be threat to one's life and property. There could be allurement in terms of the material and physical gains. Crime could be committed on account of stress or depression also. It could be on account of the company that one keeps. One could commit crime in order to help his family and friends. All these and many more could be termed as circumstances leading to the commission of crime. 17. In aforesaid case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered whether compliance of proviso to Section 15(1) is directory or mandatory, and observed in para 75, 76 and 79 as under :- “75. It is to be noted that child psychology is a specialised branch of development psychology, its genesis is based on the premise that children and adults have a different thought process. It is to be noted that child psychology is a specialised branch of development psychology, its genesis is based on the premise that children and adults have a different thought process. The individualised assessment of adolescent mental capacity and ability to understand the consequences of the offence is one of the most crucial determinants of the preliminary assessment mandated by section 15 of the Act, 2015. The report of the preliminary assessment decides the germane question of transferring the case of a child between 16 to 18 years of age to the Children's Court. This evaluation of ‘mental capacity and ability to understand the consequences’ of the child in conflict with law can, in no way, be relegated to the status of a perfunctory and a routine task. The process of taking a decision on which the fate of the child in conflict with law precariously rests, should not be taken without conducting a meticulous psychological evaluation. 76. As already noticed, the Board consists of three members, one is a Judicial Officer First Class and two social workers, one being a woman. The social worker appointed as a member could be having a degree in child psychology or psychiatry but it is not necessary. As such, the constitution of the Board may not necessarily be having an expert child psychologist. It is for all the above reasons that it has been provided not only in sections 15 and 101(2) but also under the Model Rules that assistance may be taken from an expert psychologist. Having regard to the framework of the Act, 2015 and the Model Rules and the purpose of preliminary assessment in terms of Section 15 as also looking to the varied composition of the Board, we are of the view that where the Board is not comprising of a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the expression “may” in the proviso to section 15(1) would operate in mandatory form and the Board would be obliged to take assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts. However, in case the Board comprises of at least one such member, who has been a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the Board may take such assistance as may be considered proper by it; and in case the Board chooses not to take such assistance, it would be required of the Board to state specific reasons therefor.” 79. Therefore, looking to the purpose of the Act, 2015 and its legislative intent, particularly to ensure the protection of best interest of the child, the expression “may” in the proviso to Section 15(1) thereof and the requirement of taking assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts would operate as mandatory unless the Board itself comprises of at least one member who is a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry. Moreover, in case the Board, in view of its own composition with at least one member, who is a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, chooses not to take such assistance, it would record specific reasons therefor.” 18. Reverting back to the instant case, as has been stated above that the proviso to Section 15 enables the Board to take assistance of an experienced psychologist, psychiatrist or psychosocial worker or any other expert to make preliminary assessment of the juvenile with regard to assess his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, but in the instant case, aforesaid provision has not been complied with and the impugned order has been passed by the Board only on the basis of social investigation report prepared by the counselor, which is based on the conversation made by him with the child and facts and circumstances of the case. 19. 19. A perusal of the order of the Board as well as the Children's Court shows that while passing impugned orders, they have only considered the age of the applicant-juvenile and the manner in which alleged crime has been committed by him, whereas the Children's Court has observed that, what was the mental status of the applicantjuvenile and his state of mind at the time of commission of crime has not been stated in the social investigation report, despite that, without taking assistance of any experienced psychologist or other experts, they have passed impugned order and no such finding has been given by the Board or Children's Court so as to reach to the conclusion that the applicant-juvenile was well aware about the consequence of the offence committed by him and his mental and physical capacity was such that he was well aware about the nature of offence and consequence thereof, as has been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of CBI -v- Master Bholu and Anr.(supra). Even in social investigation report, it has been mentioned that at the time of incident, the applicant-juvenile had consumed liquor, but the fact and circumstances, in which alleged offence has been committed, have also not been considered by the Board or Children's Court. Even Counselor has also not been examined by the Board so as to know about his qualification and knowledge about child psychology and child psychiatry. 20. In any case, if the Board decides that the child in conflict with law falling in the age bracket of 16 – 18 years and he has committed heinous offence, therefore, he be tried as an adult by the Children’s Court ,then its consequences are serious in nature and have a lasting effect for the entire life of the child i.e. first, that the sentence or the punishment could go up to life imprisonment if the child is tried as an adult by the Children’s Court, whereas if the child is tried by the Board as a child, the maximum sentence that can be awarded is three years, Secondly, where the child is tried as a child by the Board then under Section 24(1), he would not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction of an offence, whereas this benefit has not been given to a child who is tried as an adult by the Children’s Court. Thirdly, as per Section 24(2), where the Board or the Children’s Court, after the case is over, may direct the police or the Registry that relevant record of such convict may be destroyed after the period of expiry of appeal or a reasonable period as may be prescribed. Whereas, when a child is tried as an adult, the relevant record shall be retained by the relevant court as per the proviso to Section 24(2). Therefore, it is not expected from the Board to take provisions of Section 15 of the Act, 2015 and related rules so lightly or capriciously, rather, it be taken seriously and the issue be considered and decided by following procedures prescribed in law by applying judicious/lawful mind. 21. In view of the facts and provisions of law, as has been discussed above, this revision is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 26-2-2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur, Sarguja and order dated 3-9-2021 passed by the Children's Court/Upper Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, (POCSO Act), Sarguja, Ambikapur are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Board for fresh consideration for assessment of applicant-juvenile with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequence and the circumstances under which he allegedly committed the offence as per aforesaid provisions of law. Necessary exercise be done as early as possible. 22. Record of the Board/Court below be returned forthwith