THIRUMOORTHY vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Case Analysis

THIRUMOORTHY vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

November 21, 2024

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court, in Thirumoorthy v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police ([2024] 3 S.C.R. 1228), dealt with the trial of a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). The appellant, aged 16 at the time of the alleged crimes in 2016, was charged and convicted under Sections 363, 342, 302, 201 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act without adherence to mandatory procedures under the JJ Act. The Court found that the investigation and trial grossly violated provisions of the JJ Act, including the absence of a preliminary assessment under Section 15 to determine if the juvenile should be tried as an adult. Consequently, the proceedings were declared void ab initio. The judgment emphasized the significance of procedural compliance under the JJ Act for CICLs.

Keywords: Juvenile Justice, Child in Conflict with Law, Preliminary Assessment, Heinous Offences, Procedural Compliance.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title

Thirumoorthy v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police

ii) Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 1773 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date

22 March 2024

iv) Court

Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum

Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

vi) Author

Justice Sandeep Mehta

vii) Citation

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1228

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

Sections 363, 342, 302, 201 IPC
Section 6, POCSO Act, 2012
Sections 3, 9, 15, 18, 19, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case

None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects

Criminal Law
Juvenile Justice Law
Constitutional Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appellant was a minor at the time of committing alleged heinous offences in 2016. Despite the knowledge of his juvenile status, the prosecution initiated proceedings directly before the Sessions Court without following the mandatory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. This procedural lapse led to his conviction and subsequent sentencing under IPC and the POCSO Act. The High Court upheld the conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinized the procedural irregularities and highlighted the mandatory nature of the JJ Act provisions to protect the rights of CICLs.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Incident and Registration of Case: A six-year-old child went missing on 2nd July 2016, leading to the registration of an FIR the following day. The accused, aged 16, was apprehended based on circumstantial evidence.
Discovery and Investigation: During interrogation, the appellant allegedly confessed, and the victim’s body was recovered from his house. The cause of death was determined as homicidal asphyxiation.
Status of the Accused: The investigating officer identified the accused as a minor (born on 30th May 2000) but proceeded with the trial in Sessions Court, bypassing the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).
Trial and Conviction: The Sessions Court, treating itself as a designated Children’s Court, convicted the accused for abduction, sexual assault, and murder under IPC and POCSO Act provisions. The High Court affirmed this decision.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the trial of the appellant as an adult was legally permissible under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015?

ii. Whether procedural violations under the JJ Act vitiated the trial and sentencing?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

Violation of JJ Act Provisions: The appellant argued that procedural safeguards under Sections 15, 18, and 19 of the JJ Act were blatantly ignored. The case was never presented before the JJB for preliminary assessment.
Invalid Investigation: The investigation conducted by non-specialized police officers contravened Section 107(2) of the JJ Act, requiring involvement of the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU).
Unlawful Trial in Sessions Court: The trial was conducted without the mandatory preliminary assessment under Section 15, denying the appellant the right to contest being tried as an adult.
Reliance on Inadmissible Evidence: The alleged confession was recorded contrary to Section 3(i) of the JJ Act, violating the principle of presumption of innocence.
Age and Mental Capacity: At 23 years, a retrospective assessment of the appellant’s mental and physical capacity would be futile.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

Designation of Sessions Court as Children’s Court: The State contended that the trial court had jurisdiction as a designated Children’s Court under the JJ Act.
Severity of the Crime: The heinous nature of the offences justified the procedural deviations to ensure justice for the victim.
Fair Sentence: The trial court appropriately considered the appellant’s age during sentencing by ordering confinement in a juvenile home until the age of 21.
No Prejudice: The procedural lapses did not prejudice the appellant, as the sentencing adhered to JJ Act principles.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that procedural violations under the JJ Act, including the absence of a preliminary assessment under Section 15 and lack of jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to directly try a CICL, vitiated the entire trial.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court underscored the mandatory nature of Sections 15 and 19 of the JJ Act to ensure juvenile justice aligns with international child rights standards.

c. Guidelines

Mandatory Preliminary Assessment: All CICLs accused of heinous crimes must undergo a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act.
Jurisdiction of JJB: Juvenile Justice Boards have exclusive jurisdiction over CICLs until a proper order is passed to transfer the case to a Children’s Court.
Specialized Investigation: Only SJPUs must investigate cases involving CICLs to ensure adherence to JJ Act principles.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed the sanctity of procedural safeguards for CICLs under the JJ Act. It highlighted the need for strict compliance with legal requirements to avoid compromising the fundamental rights of juveniles, even in heinous cases. The judgment serves as a reminder that adherence to procedural justice cannot be compromised for punitive expediency.

Case Analysis