The Supreme Court has acquitted a man previously convicted of murder, highlighting the crucial consideration of his juvenile status at the time of the crime. The verdict, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized the injustice of sending the case back to the Juvenile Justice Board after the appellant had already undergone more than four years of incarceration.

The case revolved around events that transpired on June 28, 2012, when the appellant, now acquitted, was involved in a criminal incident leading to his conviction by the trial court. The Madras High Court subsequently upheld the conviction, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The pivotal factor in the Supreme Court's decision was the appellant's age at the time of the offense. Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, played a crucial role in determining the juvenile status of the appellant on the day of the occurrence. According to the Act, a person below a certain age is considered a juvenile in conflict with the law. In this case, the appellant fell within the definition of a juvenile, rendering his trial before the regular Criminal Court unjust.

Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in their observations, highlighted that the most stringent order that could have been passed by the Juvenile Justice Board was sending the appellant to a special home for a maximum period of three years. Notably, the appellant had already served more than four years in incarceration, making it inequitable to send the case back to the Juvenile Justice Board.

The legal proceedings took an interesting turn when the appellant, before the Apex Court, raised a contention that on the date of the offense, he was a juvenile in conflict with the law. In response, the Court directed an inquiry into the matter, assigning the task to the District Judge. The subsequent report from the District and Sessions Judge confirmed the appellant's status as a minor at the time of the crime.

Consequently, the Supreme Court, in its ruling, set aside the impugned judgments and orders pertaining to the appellant. The acquittal was based on the grounds that, on the date of the offense, he was indeed a juvenile in conflict with the law.

Case: MUTHALAGU vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.234 OF 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.8046 of 2023).

Click to Read/Download order.