Case title: Thirumoorthy v. State represented by the Inspector of Police
Case no.: SLP(Crl.) No(s). 1936 of 2023.
Decided on: 22.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involves a missing 6-year-old victim, Ms. D, who is the daughter of the first informant, Mr. G (PW-1). The incident occurred on the evening of 2nd July 2016 when the victim went missing. A complaint was lodged by Mr. G (PW-1) at P.S. Kolathur, District Provision. The accused appellant, who was a CICL (Child in Conflict with Law) at the time of the incident, was convicted and sentenced by the trial court. The accused appellant’s mother filed a petition seeking a reduction in her son’s sentence and early release. The accused appellant appealed the conviction and sentencing, which was rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The legality of the trial proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act was questioned, leading to further legal actions and appeals.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Section 363 IPC: The accused was sentenced to undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment under this section.
Section 342 IPC: The accused was sentenced to undergo 1 year of rigorous imprisonment under this section.
Section 6 POCSO Act: The accused was sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under this section.
Section 302 IPC: The accused was sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under this section.
Section 201 read with 302 IPC: The accused was sentenced to undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment under this section.
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015: The legal proceedings were required to be conducted in accordance with the mandatory procedures prescribed under the act.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The learned counsel for the appellant implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and sought acquittal for the accused appellant. It was argued that the witnesses relied upon were unreliable, and the recovery of the dead body and disclosure statement were not proven by reliable evidence. The appellant’s counsel emphasized the accused’s status as a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) at the time of the incident and raised concerns about the trial’s adherence to the Juvenile Justice Act.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The learned counsel representing the State vehemently opposed the submissions made by the appellant’s counsel. The State contended that the nature of the crime was gruesome and cited judgments from previous cases to support their arguments. The State emphasized the legality of the trial proceedings and opposed the appellant’s plea for acquittal based on the evidence presented during the trial.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The Court examined the legality of the trial proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act and the adherence to mandatory procedures. It considered the status of the accused as a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) at the time of the incident. The Court reviewed the evidence presented during the trial and assessed the arguments put forth by both the appellant and the State.
The Court upheld the trial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. It found that the trial court’s actions were in violation of the mandatory requirements of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court emphasized the importance of following proper procedures in cases involving CICL and highlighted the need for adherence to legal provisions. The appeal for acquittal was rejected, and the trial court’s judgment convicting the accused appellant was upheld.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
