Supreme Court quashes trial of Juvenile in heinous crime for violating JJ Act: Thirumoorthy vs. State (2024) INSC 247

Date of the Judgment: 22 March 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 247
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can a trial be considered valid if it blatantly disregards the mandatory procedures designed to protect the rights of a child in conflict with the law? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a juvenile accused of a heinous crime. The court examined whether the trial court’s failure to follow the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act) vitiated the entire proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, with Justice Mehta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the disappearance and subsequent death of a 6-year-old girl, Ms. D, in Salem, Tamil Nadu. On July 2, 2016, Ms. D went missing after being sent home from a shop. Her father, Mr. G (PW-1), filed a complaint the next day when she did not return. The police investigation led to the appellant, Thirumoorthy, who was found to be a juvenile at the time of the incident. Despite this, the police filed a charge sheet directly in the Sessions Court, which proceeded with the trial, ultimately convicting and sentencing Thirumoorthy.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court, despite being aware that the accused was a juvenile, proceeded with the trial, convicting and sentencing him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld this conviction. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the entire trial was vitiated due to non-compliance with the JJ Act.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court highlighted several key provisions of the JJ Act:

• Section 2(13): Defines a “Child in Conflict with Law” (CICL) as a child alleged to have committed an offense.
• Section 2(33): Defines “heinous offenses” as those punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more.
• Section 3: Lays down the general principles to be followed in the administration of the Act, including the presumption of innocence for children, the principle of best interest, and the principle of non-waiver of rights.
• Section 9: Mandates that a Magistrate, not empowered under the JJ Act, must forward a child to the Juvenile Justice Board (Board) immediately. It also states that if a court finds a person to be a child, it shall forward the child to the Board and any sentence passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect.
  

  “9. Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this Act. –– (1) When a Magistrate, not empowered to exercise the powers of the Board under this Act is of the opinion that the person alleged to have committed the offence and brought before him is a child, he shall, without any delay, record such opinion and forward the child immediately along with the record of such proceedings to the Board having jurisdiction.”

  “(3) If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect.”

• Section 15: Requires the Board to conduct a preliminary assessment for heinous offenses committed by children above 16 years to determine their mental and physical capacity to commit the offense.
  

  “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 consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of section 18”

• Section 18(3): Allows the Board to transfer the case to the Children’s Court if it determines that the child needs to be tried as an adult.
• Section 19(1): Empowers the Children’s Court to decide whether there is a need for trial of the child as an adult after receiving the preliminary assessment from the Board.
  

  “19. Powers of Children’s Court. —(1) After the receipt of preliminary assessment from the Board under Section 15, the Children’s Court may decide that — (i) there is a need for trial of the child as an adult as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and pass appropriate orders after trial subject to the provisions of this section and Section 21, considering the special needs of the child, the tenets of fair trial and maintaining a child friendly atmosphere;”

• Section 107(2): Requires the State Government to constitute a Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) to investigate offenses committed by CICL.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The entire trial was vitiated because the appellant was a CICL, and the mandatory procedures under the JJ Act were not followed.
• The investigation was not conducted by the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) as required under Section 107(2) of the JJ Act.
• The principle of presumption of innocence under Section 3(1) of the JJ Act was ignored.
• The Sessions Judge was not designated as a Children’s Court, and even if it was, the trial could not have proceeded without a preliminary assessment by the Board under Section 15 of the JJ Act.
• The alleged confession of the accused was inadmissible as it was recorded in the presence of a police officer, violating the general principles of the JJ Act.
• The witnesses (PW-10 and PW-11) were unreliable, and their statements regarding the last seen circumstance should not have been relied upon.
• The recovery of the dead body based on the disclosure statement was not proven by reliable evidence.

State’s Arguments:

• The gruesome nature of the crime should not be overlooked due to procedural irregularities.
• The Sessions Court was designated as a Children’s Court.
• The trial court and High Court considered the fact that the accused was a juvenile and awarded sentences commensurate with the JJ Act.
• The trial court conducted a mental and psychological assessment of the accused after the conviction.
• The State relied on the judgments in Karan alias Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Pawan Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors to argue that the trial was not vitiated.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:

1. Whether the trial is vitiated on account of non-adherence to the mandatory requirements of the JJ Act, considering the accused was a CICL on the date of the incident.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Karan alias Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2023) 5 SCC 504 ] – Supreme Court of India. The court distinguished this case, stating it was not applicable as the fact that the accused was a child was known to all authorities from the beginning.
• Pawan Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [ 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1492 ] – Supreme Court of India. The court distinguished this case, stating it was not applicable as the fact that the accused was a child came to light at a very late stage.
• Ajeet Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 2023 SCC Online SC 1255 ] – Supreme Court of India. The court relied on this case to emphasize that the procedure under Sections 15 and 19 of the JJ Act is mandatory.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 2(13) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Defines a “Child in Conflict with Law” (CICL).
• Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Defines “heinous offenses.”
• Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Lays down the general principles to be followed in the administration of the Act.
• Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Outlines the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate when dealing with a child.
• Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Mandates preliminary assessment by the Board in cases of heinous offenses.
• Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Deals with orders regarding a child found in conflict with the law.
• Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Defines the powers of the Children’s Court.
• Section 107(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Requires the State Government to constitute a Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU).

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the entire proceedings against the appellant were vitiated due to gross violation of the mandatory procedures prescribed under the JJ Act. The court noted that the fact that the accused was a juvenile was known to the Investigating Officer, the prosecution, and the trial court, yet the procedures under the JJ Act were not followed.

The court observed that:

• The charge sheet was filed directly before the Sessions Court, bypassing the Juvenile Justice Board.
• No preliminary assessment was conducted by the Board under Section 15 of the JJ Act.
• The trial court did not determine if there was a need to try the child as an adult under Section 19(1) of the JJ Act.

The Court stated that the actions of the trial court were a “gross violation of the mandate of the Act” and that the attempt to give an “ex post facto imprimatur” to the illegal trial was not valid. The court also held that the cases relied upon by the State were distinguishable as in those cases the fact that the accused was a child came to light at a later stage.

The Court quashed the impugned judgment and directed the release of the appellant.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Karan alias Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2023) 5 SCC 504 ]*: The court distinguished this case, stating it was not applicable as the fact that the accused was a child was known to all authorities from the beginning.
• Pawan Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [ 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1492 ]*: The court distinguished this case, stating it was not applicable as the fact that the accused was a child came to light at a very late stage.
• Ajeet Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 2023 SCC Online SC 1255 ]*: The court relied on this case to emphasize that the procedure under Sections 15 and 19 of the JJ Act is mandatory.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

“Thus, on the face of the record, the proceedings undertaken by the Sessions Court in conducting trial of the CICL, convicting and sentencing him as above are in gross violation of the mandate of the Act and thus, the entire proceedings stand vitiated.”

“All the proceedings taken against the accused appellant are vitiated as being in total violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the JJ Act.”

“Since we have held that the entire proceedings taken against the appellant right from the stage of investigation and the completion of trial stand vitiated as having been undertaken in gross violation of the mandatory requirements of the JJ Act, we need not dwell into the merits of the matter or to reappreciate the evidence available on record for finding out whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant by reliable circumstantial evidence.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the blatant disregard for the mandatory procedures outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The court emphasized that the protection of children in conflict with the law is a paramount concern, and any deviation from the prescribed procedures would vitiate the entire legal process. The court was particularly concerned that the trial court and the High Court proceeded with the trial despite knowing that the accused was a juvenile, thus violating the core principles of the JJ Act.

Key Takeaways

• The procedures laid down in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 are mandatory and must be strictly followed when dealing with children in conflict with the law.
• A preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board is essential before a child accused of a heinous offense can be tried as an adult.
• Any trial conducted without adhering to the mandatory procedures of the JJ Act is liable to be quashed.
• The principle of best interest of the child is paramount.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, who was lodged in jail, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the mandatory procedures of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 must be strictly followed when dealing with a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL), and any deviation from these procedures will render the trial void. This judgment reinforces the importance of the preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board and the need to ensure that the best interests of the child are always paramount. This case does not change the previous positions of law but reinforces the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Thirumoorthy vs. State underscores the critical importance of adhering to the mandatory procedures of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The court’s firm stance against procedural lapses reaffirms the commitment to protecting the rights of children in conflict with the law. The judgment serves as a reminder to all stakeholders in the justice system that the welfare of children must be the primary consideration in all legal proceedings involving juveniles.

Category

Parent Category: Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

Child Categories:

• Child in Conflict with Law
• Juvenile Justice Board
• Preliminary Assessment
• Children’s Court
• Heinous Offenses
• Section 2(13), Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
• Section 2(33), Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
• Section 3, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
• Section 9, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
• Section 15, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
• Section 18, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
• Section 19, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
• Section 107(2), Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Thirumoorthy vs. State case?
A: The main issue was whether the trial of a juvenile offender was valid when the mandatory procedures of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 were not followed.

Q: What is a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL)?
A: A CICL is a child who is alleged to have committed an offense. The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 provides special procedures for dealing with such children.

Q: What is the role of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)?
A: The JJB is responsible for conducting preliminary assessments of juveniles accused of heinous offenses to determine if they should be tried as adults. They also make decisions regarding the care and protection of children in conflict with the law.

Q: What is a preliminary assessment under the JJ Act?
A: A preliminary assessment is an evaluation by the JJB to determine a juvenile’s mental and physical capacity to commit an offense, their ability to understand the consequences, and the circumstances under which the offense was committed.

Q: What happens if the procedures of the JJ Act are not followed?
A: If the procedures of the JJ Act are not followed, any trial conducted against a juvenile is liable to be quashed, as was the case in Thirumoorthy vs. State.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future cases?
A: This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the mandatory procedures of the JJ Act and ensures that the rights of children in conflict with the law are protected. It serves as a reminder to all stakeholders in the justice system to prioritize the welfare of children.