Apex Court Acquits Murder Convict Who Has Undergone 4 Years Incarceration After Inquiry By District Judge Revealed That He Was Juvenile At Time Offence

The court was of the opinion that it would be unjust to send the case back to the Juvenile Justice Board as the appellant has undergone incarceration for more than 4 years.

Therefore, considering the date of occurrence of the offence was June 28, 2012, and accordingly then in terms of Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 the appellant was a juvenile in conflict with law on the day of occurrence, a bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “…he could not have been tried before the regular Criminal Court. In terms of Section 15(g) of the 2000 Act, the most stringent order that could have been passed against the appellant by the Juvenile Justice Board was of directing of him to be sent to a special home for a period of three years. The appellant has undergone incarceration for more than 4 years. Therefore, now, it will be unjust to send the case back to the Juvenile Justice Board”.

AOR M.P. Parthiban appeared for the petitioner and AOR Joseph Aristotle S appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter, before the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, appeal was preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, finding 6 persons guilty of offences under Sections 302, 506, 148 IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal as the grounds raised by the appellants lacked merits and accordingly, upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

Therefore, now before the Apex Court, the appellant raised a contention that on the date of commission of the offence, he was a juvenile in conflict with law.

Pursuant to which, the Court then directed an inquiry to be made by the District Judge on the issue of juvenility. As per the report by the District and Sessions Judge, appellant was a minor at the time of the commission of the offence.

Consequentially, the bench observed, “Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgments and orders only insofar as the present appellant is concerned. The appellant is acquitted of the offences alleged against him in Special S.C.No.24 of 2013 decided by the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur on 28th March, 2016 only on the ground that on the date of commission of the offence, he was a juvenile in conflict with law”.

Cause Title: Muthalagu v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police