The Kerala High Court on Tuesday upheld the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) order allowing the escorted movement of children in conflict with law (CCLs) in the Karuvatta murder case for evidence collection.

The case pertains to the murder of a 67-year-old man, allegedly plotted by his 13-year-old granddaughter and executed with the help of three of her friends. All four accused were minors, bringing the case under the ambit of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act. It was one of the rare instances in which all the accused in a murder case were minors.

While delivering the verdict, Justice G Girish observed that the conditions imposed by the JJB were sufficient to protect the minors from public scrutiny.

"The JJB had rightly taken the precaution to avoid publication of the date and time of escorted movement in advance to prevent the chances of persons assembling there to see the CCLs. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the above regard is totally unsustainable," he said.

The judgment comes after the court had stayed the JJB's September 7 order in a criminal revision petition filed by three of the CCLs in the case registered by the Haripad Police Station.

According to the plea, the CCLs are accused of offences under Sections 61(1), 49, 332(a), 103(1), 309, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It states that the Child Welfare Police Officer had approached the JJB seeking permission to interview the CCLs and requesting their 'escorted movement' for evidence collection and recovery.

In an order dated August 29, the JJB permitted the interviews to be conducted within the child-friendly premises of the Observation Home but deferred the request for escorted movement. The JJB subsequently granted police custody of three minors for the investigation. Meanwhile, the counsel for two of the CCLs filed detailed objections to the proposed escorted movement.

The defence suggested alternative methods for recovering gloves and gold and collecting digital evidence, including CCTV analysis, examination of independent witnesses, and the involvement of the Cyber Cell and digital forensics. These measures, it argued, could be carried out without removing the children from the Observation Home. The defence also questioned the competence of the Investigating Officer.

However, the plea stated that the JJB passed the impugned order without considering these objections or applying its mind to them. It alleged that the order effectively placed the CCLs in police custody under the guise of 'escorted movement', in violation of the JJ Act.

The plea further argued that the proposed movement was intended to facilitate recoveries under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It stated that, after obtaining disclosure statements during the interviews at the Observation Home, the police now sought to take the CCLs out to recover physical evidence such as apparel, gloves and gold. According to the plea, this would amount to de facto police custody, which is prohibited under Section 10 of the JJ Act.

It also pointed to what it described as contradictory conditions imposed for the escorted movement. While the order states that the children should not be exposed to the public, it permits them to be taken to locations including an EV charging station, a railway station and a KSRTC bus stand.
(With LiveLaw inputs)