Thirumoorthy vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police [Supreme Court, March 22, 2024]
Background
Thirumoorthy, aged 16 at the time of the alleged offences in July 2016, was accused and convicted of serious crimes including kidnapping, wrongful confinement, murder, destruction of evidence, and aggravated sexual assault under Sections 363, 342, 302, 201 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The trial court convicted him, and the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Thirumoorthy appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that he was a juvenile (Child in Conflict with Law, CICL) at the time of the incident and that the mandatory procedures under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) were not followed during investigation and trial.
Key Legal Issues
Whether the investigation and trial complied with the mandatory provisions of the JJ Act for a CICL.
The validity of the conviction and sentence imposed without a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act to determine if the juvenile should be tried as an adult.
The consequences of procedural lapses in cases involving juveniles.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, found that:
The fact that Thirumoorthy was a CICL was well known to the investigating officer, prosecution, and trial court from the outset, as his date of birth was recorded in school documents and acknowledged by all authorities involved.
Despite this, the authorities failed to conduct a mandatory preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act to determine whether Thirumoorthy should be tried as an adult. Instead, he was tried and convicted as an adult without adherence to the special procedures and protections provided for juveniles under the Act.
The Court emphasized that the JJ Act’s procedures are not mere technicalities but are essential safeguards to ensure the rights and welfare of children in conflict with law. Any trial conducted in violation of these mandatory provisions is void ab initio (invalid from the outset).
Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence, declaring the entire investigation and trial proceedings void due to gross violations of the JJ Act’s mandatory procedures.
The Court ordered that Thirumoorthy be dealt with strictly in accordance with the JJ Act, including a fresh preliminary assessment if required, and directed that he be kept in a place of safety until the age of 21, after which his reformation should be evaluated before any further decision on release.
The judgment reaffirmed the importance of procedural compliance and the rehabilitative focus of juvenile justice.
Significance
This decision underscores that failure to follow statutory safeguards for juveniles leads to the nullification of criminal proceedings, reinforcing the primacy of child rights and due process in the juvenile justice system.
Citation:
Thirumoorthy v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 1773 of 2024, Judgment dated March 22, 2024 [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1228.
RELATED Blog
0 comments