Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Thirumoorthy - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by the Inspector of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal NO(S). 1773 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 1936 of 2023)
Decided On : 22-03-2024
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 15 and 19 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 342 and 363 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Juvenile in conflict with law – Conviction and sentence – Even when charge-sheet was filed, Investigating Officer had clearly recorded that date of birth of accused was 30th May, 2000 and even assuming that Sessions Court had been designated as a Children’s Court, there was no option for said Court but to forward the child to concerned Board for further directions – Offences of which accused appellant was charged with, fall within category of ‘heinous offences’ as defined under Section 2(33) of JJ Act – Procedure provided under Sections 15 and 19 has been held to be mandatory – In absence of a preliminary assessment being conducted by Board under Section 15, and without an order being passed by Board under Section 15(1) read with Section 18(3), it was impermissible for trial Court to have accepted charge-sheet and to have proceeded with trial of accused – Procedure adopted by Sessions Court in conducting trial of accused appellant is de hors mandatory requirements of JJ Act – Entire proceedings taken against appellant right from stage of investigation and completion of trial stand vitiated as having been undertaken in gross violation of mandatory requirements of JJ Act – Impugned judgment quashed and set aside. (Paras 31, 32, 35, 38, 39, 42, 49 and 50)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal takes exception to judgment dated 15th April, 2021, passed by Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and affirming conviction of appellant and sentences awarded to him under Sections 302, 342 and 363 of IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO Act.
Findings of Court:
At this stage, there remains no realistic possibility of finding out the mental and physical capacity of the accused appellant to commit the offence or to assess his ability to understand the consequences of the offence and circumstances in which he committed the offence in the year 2016.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 15th April, 2021, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) and affirming the conviction of the appellant and sentences awarded to him vide judgment and order dated 18th February, 2019, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem (hereinafter being referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Special Sessions Case No. 79 of 2016. By the said judgment and order, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as below: -
| Provision under which convicted | Sentence |
| Section 363 IPC | Sentenced to undergo 07 years rigorous imprisonment. |
| Section 342 IPC | Sentenced to undergo 01 years rigorous imprisonment. |
| Section 6 POCSO Act | Sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment. |
| Section 302 IPC | Sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment. |
| Section 201 read with 302 IPC | Sentenced to undergo 07 years rigorous imprisonment. |
3. The trial Court in para 96 of its judgment held as under: -
4. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted hereinbelow.
5. The victim Ms. D, being the daughter of the first informant- Mr. G(PW-1) aged 6 years went missing in the evening of 2nd July, 2016. Mr. G (PW-1) lodged a complaint at P.S. Kolathur, District Salem on 3rd July, 2016 at 7 ‘o clock in the morning alleging, inter alia that he had taken his daughter(victim) to a shop on the previous evening at around 6 o’ clock and from there, he asked the child to return home. However, when he reached his house half an hour later and made an inquiry from his wife, he was told that the child had not returned by then. A search was made in the locality but the child could not be traced out. Based on the said complaint, Crime No. 174 of 2016 was registered and investigation was undertaken by S. Viswanathan, Inspector of Police (PW-25).
6. The Investigating Officer (PW-25) recorded the statements of Mylaswamy (PW-10) and Irusappan (PW-11) who stated that they had seen the accused going into the compound of his house with the child victim being the daughter of the first informant-Mr. G (PW-1). On this, the needle of suspicion pointed towards the accused-appellant who was apprehended from his house by the Investigating Officer (PW-25) while he was trying to run away. The accused was interrogated in presence of Mr. Arivazhagan, Village Administrative Officer (PW-15) and his assistant Muthappan.
7. It is alleged that the accused confessed to his guilt and his admission was recorded in memo (Ex. P-20) and acting in furtherance thereof, 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 requisite spot inspection proceedings were undertaken and the dead body of the child victim was sent to the Sal
Procedure provided under Sections 15 and 19 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been held to be mandatory.
Mandatory inquiries under the Juvenile Justice Act must be conducted to assess a child's capacity to commit an offence; failure to do so renders the trial invalid.
The proceedings against a Child in Conflict with Law must comply strictly with statutory inquiry requirements for fair trial rights, or they may be quashed due to procedural violations.
The lack of compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards in juvenile trials invalidates the conviction, necessitating adherence to due process under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Proper procedures must be followed in determining the age and maturity of a Child in Conflict with Law to ensure fair trial under the Juvenile Justice Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a juvenile accused should be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the failure to do so renders any order uns....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
