Accused Was Not Subjected To Preliminary Assessment By Juvenile Justice Board To Find Out Whether He Should Be Tried As Adult: SC Quashes POCSO Conviction
The Supreme Court directed the release of an accused in POCSO case who was a juvenile when the offence was committed.
The Court said that the very foundation of prosecution case is illegal to the core as he was never presented before the Juvenile Justice Board as per the mandate of the Juvenile Justice Act.
In this case, an appeal was filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court by which it dismissed the criminal appeal of the accused under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and affirmed his conviction by awarding him sentence.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “It seems that pursuant to the trial being concluded, the trial Court realized the gross illegality in the proceedings and thus, in an attempt to give a vestige of validity to the grossly illegal proceedings conducted earlier, an exercise was undertaken to deal with the accused appellant as per the provisions of the JJ Act on the aspect of sentencing. However, ex facie, the said action which seems to be taken by way of providing an ex post facto imprimatur to the grossly illegal trial does not stand to scrutiny because the very foundation of the prosecution case is illegal to the core.”
The Bench said that in absence of a preliminary assessment being conducted by the Board under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act), and without an order being passed by the Board under Section 15(1) read with Section 18(3), it was impermissible for the trial Court to have accepted the charge sheet and to have proceeded with the trial of the accused.
Advocate S. Janani appeared on behalf of the appellant/accused while Advocate Joseph Aristotle S. appeared on behalf of the respondent/State.
Brief Facts -
The victim aged 6 years went missing in 2016 and her father lodged a complaint alleging that he had taken his daughter to a shop and from there, he asked her to return home. However, when he reached home, he was informed by his wife that the victim had not returned by then. A search was made in the locality but the victim could not be traced out and hence, a complaint was registered. Thereafter, on investigation, the needle of suspicion was pointed towards the accused who was apprehended from his house by the Investigating Officer while he was trying to run away.
It was alleged that the accused confessed to his guilt and the victim’s dead body was found concealed in a wide-mouthed aluminium vessel lying in the prayer room of the accused’s house. The post mortem report indicated that the victim’s death was homicidal in nature having being caused by asphyxiation due to compression of neck along with injuries to genitalia. Some incised wounds were also found on the body and incriminating articles were recovered from the accused’s house. The Trial Court convicted the accused and then his mother approached the Special Court via an application seeking reduction of sentence, but the same was dismissed. The High Court also rejected the appeal and hence, accused was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “As can be seen from the facts of the present case, there has been a flagrant violation of the mandatory requirements of Sections 15 and 19 of the JJ Act. Neither was the charge sheet against the accused appellant filed before the Board nor was any preliminary assessment conducted under Section 15, so as to find out whether the accused appellant was required to be tried as an adult.”
The Court further said that the procedure adopted by the Sessions Court in conducting the trial of the accused is de hors the mandatory requirements of JJ Act and that the proceedings undertaken by the Sessions Court in conducting trial of the CICL (Child in Conflict with Law), convicting and sentencing him 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. … The accused appellant being a CICL was never subjected to preliminary assessment by the Board so as to find out whether he should be tried as an adult. Directing such an exercise at this stage would be sheer futility because now the appellant is nearly 23 years of age”, it ordered.
The Court observed that at this stage, there remains no realistic possibility of finding out the mental and physical capacity of the accused 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.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and directed the release of the accused.
Cause Title- Thirumoorthy v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 247)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR S. Janani and Advocate Sharika Rai.
Respondent: AOR Joseph Aristotle S., Advocates Bhanu Kapoor, and Ashutosh Singh Rana.
