THIRUMOORTHY versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1228 · Decided: 22-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1228 : 2024 INSC 247
Thirumoorthy 
v. 
State Represented by the Inspector of Police
(Criminal Appeal No. 1773 of 2024)
22 March 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant-accused, a Child in Conflict with Law on the date of the 
incident was convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 342, 302, 201 
r/w 302, IPC and s.6, POCSO Act. Trial, conviction and sentence 
of the appellant, if was vitiated on account of non-adherence to 
the mandatory requirements of the Juvenile Justice (Care and 
Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Headnotes
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 
– ss.3, 9, 15, 18, 19 – Despite the appellant-accused having 
been found to be a juvenile and thus, a Child in Conflict with 
Law (CICL) on the date of the incident in 2016, charge sheet 
against the accused was filed directly before the Sessions 
Court – Appellant was convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 
342, 201 r/w 302, IPC and s.6, POCSO Act – Conviction and 
sentences affirmed by High Court – Correctness:
Held: Even before the result of investigation was filed, the fact 
regarding the accused being a CICL was well known to the IO (PW-
25), the prosecution and the trial Court as well – Even assuming 
that the Sessions Court was designated as a Children’s Court, there 
was no option for the said Court but to forward the child to the 
concerned Juvenile Justice Board for further directions – There was 
flagrant violation of the mandatory requirements of ss.15 and 19 of 
the JJ Act – Neither was the charge sheet against the appellant filed 
before the Board nor was any preliminary assessment conducted 
u/s.15, so as to find out whether the appellant was required to 
be tried as an adult – In absence of a preliminary assessment 
being conducted by the Board u/s.15, and without an order being 
passed by the Board u/s.15(1) r/w s.18(3), it was impermissible 
for the trial Court to have accepted the charge sheet and to have 
proceeded with the trial – Thus, the proceedings undertaken by 
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
1229
Thirumoorthy v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
the Sessions Court in conducting trial of the CICL, convicting 
and sentencing him were in gross violation of the mandate of 
the Act and hence, vitiated – Further, pursuant to the trial being 
concluded, the trial Court having realized the gross illegality in the 
proceedings, dealt with the appellant as per the provisions of the 
JJ Act on the aspect of sentencing – However, ex facie, the said 
action does not stand to scrutiny because the very foundation of 
the prosecution case was illegal to the core – Entire proceedings 
taken against the appellant right from the stage of investigation 
and the completion of trial were vitiated being in gross violation of 
the mandatory requirements of the JJ Act – Impugned judgment 
quashed and set aside. [Paras 31, 37-41, 44 and 50]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 
– Appellant was convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 342, 201 
r/w 302, IPC and s.6, POCSO Act – Offence was committed 
by appellant-accused in the year 2016 – Despite him being 
a juvenile and thus, a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) on 
the date of the incident, charge sheet against him was filed 
directly before the Sessions Court (statedly designated as a 
Children’s Court) and he was never subjected to preliminary 
assessment by the Board to find out whether he should be 
tried as an adult – Such exercise if to be done at this stage:
Held: No – Directing such an exercise at this stage would be sheer 
futility because now the appellant is nearly 23 years of age – At this 
stage, there remains no realistic possibility of finding out the mental 
and physical capacity of the 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 – Present case not fit to warrant de novo proceedings against 
the appellant by taking recourse to the provisions of the JJ Act. 
[Paras 47, 48 and 46]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 
– ss.3, 9, 15, 18, 19 – Prosecution of a Child in Conflict with 
Law – Provisions to be followed – Discussed.
Case Law Cited
Karan alias Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2023] 
2 SCR 587 : (2023) 5 SCC 504; Pawan Kumar v. State 
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2023] 15 SCR  261 : 2023 
SCC OnLine SC 1492 – distinguished. 
1230
[2024] 3 S.C.R.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.