The Procedures under Sections 15 and 19 of Juvenile Justice Act mandatory to try the Accused as an Adult: Supreme Court
Case title: Thirumoorthy Vs State represented by the Inspector of Police
Case no.: Criminal Appeal – Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 1936 of 2023)
Decision on: March 22nd, 2024
Quoram: Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts of the case
The victim, daughter of the first informant went missing when he had taken her to a shop. He registered a complaint and the investigation was undertaken by the Inspector of Police. Two of the prosecution witnesses stated that they had seen the accused appellant going with the child victim. The police, based on this suspicion apprehended him from his house. It is alleged that the accused confessed of his guilt and his admission was recorded in memo and furthermore, the dead body of Ms. D was found concealed in a wide-mouthed aluminium vessel lying in the prayer room of the house of the accused. The Post-mortem report indicated that the death of the victim was homicidal in nature having being caused by asphyxiation due to compression of neck along with injuries to genitalia.
The Police Inspector noted that the accused was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence and hence a Child in Conflict of Law (CICL) as provided under Section 2(13) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The police instead of treating him under the JJ Act directly filed a charge sheet before the Sessions Court, which was later portrayed as Children’s Court by the prosecution. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the said offences. Further, the High Court of Madras affirmed the decision of trial court. Hence, this appeal was preferred by SLP.
Legal Provisions
The accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced under the following provisions – Section 363 IPC, Section 342 IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act, Section 302 IPC Sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and Section 201 read with 302 IPC.
Section 15 of JJ Act – This provision deals with the preliminary assessment into heinous crimes.
Section 19 of JJ Act – This provision deals with the removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.
Issue – Whether the trial is vitiated on the account of non-adherence to the mandatory requirements of the JJ Act?
Submission on behalf of the Appellant
The Counsel based on the school documents of the accused strongly urged that the accused was a CICL on the date of the incident. It was contended that the entire series of events from the arrest to conviction of the accused had vitiated the mandatory procedure under JJ Act. She submitted that the police who filed the charge sheet was not authorized to conduct the investigation and as such the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) constituted under the JJ Act had to investigate into the matter involving the question of CICL. In the same line, it was also submitted that the Sessions Court which conducted the trial was not designated as a Children’s Court and thus, the trial of the accused appellant was vitiated.
She further submitted that in the cases involving CICL, the Children’s Court is required find out whether there is a genuine need for trial of the CICL as an adult as provided by Section 19(1)(i) of the JJ Act, which was flouted in the instant case. The Counsel also criticized the investigation process and implored the Court to accept the appeal and sought for the acquittal of the accused appellant.
Submission on behalf of the State
The Counsel vehemently opposed the submissions made by the appellant and submitted that looking to the gruesome nature of the crime, the entire investigation and trial cannot be held to be vitiated simply on account of irregularity in the procedure of conducting investigation and trial. It was contended that the Sessions Court which conducted the trial had been designated as a Children’s Court. He relied on various authorities to support his contentions. Therefore, submitted that the Trial Court and High Court were right in convicting and sentencing the accused for the said offences and hence, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Court on perusal of the reports and judgement noted that the Investigating Officer, the prosecution and the trial Court were well aware of the fact that the accused was a CICL. It delved into the relevant provisions of JJ Act and noted the according to Section 9, if a Magistrate is not empowered to exercise the powers of the Juvenile Board and notices that the accused before him is a child, then it shall conduct tests to ascertain the age of the accused and forward the same to the Board. The Court delved into Sections 15 and 19 of the JJ Act and noted that as per the sections it is mandatory to conduct preliminary assessment and decide as to whether there is a need for trial of the child as an adult or not.
In the present case, the Court however noted that the Charge sheet was accepted without following any such mandates under the said sections leading to its gross violation. Further, it noted the violation of the mandate by the Sessions Court in conducting trial of the CICL and ruled the entire proceedings to be vitiated. In light of the above analysis, the Court quashed the impugned judgement and directed the authorities to release the appellant.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
