Karuvatta Murder Case: Kerala High Court Upholds JJB Order Allowing Escorted Movement Of Minors For Evidence Collection
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 15) upheld the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Alappuzha that allowed the escorted movement of the children in conflict with law (CCLs) for evidence collection in the Karuvatta murder case. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 505]The case refers to the murder of a 67-year-old man on August 17, 2026 allegedly by his 13-year-old granddaughter and three other...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 15) upheld the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Alappuzha that allowed the escorted movement of the children in conflict with law (CCLs) for evidence collection in the Karuvatta murder case. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 505]
The case refers to the murder of a 67-year-old man on August 17, 2026 allegedly by his 13-year-old granddaughter and three other minors. The minors are presently housed at the Government Observation Home, Alappuzha.
Justice G. Girish observed the conditions imposed by the JJB were sufficient to protect the minors from public scrutiny:
"The 13 conditions imposed by the JJB in the aforesaid order are sufficient to take care of the CCLs from being rendered objects of the gaze of onlookers, and thereby subjecting them to social stigma, as apprehended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. So also, 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."
The criminal revision petition was filed by 3 of the CCL Nos. 1 to 4 in the crime registered by the Haripad Police Station challenging JJB's order dated September 7. Last week, the Court had stayed the JJB's order.
According to the plea, the CCLs are accused of the offences under Sections 61(1), 49, 332(a), 103(1), 309, 238, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Child Welfare Police Officer filed an application before the JJB to interview the CCLs and requested their "escort movement" for evidence collection and recovery, which was allowed despite objections.
The plea contended that the conditions imposed while allowing "escorted movement" are contradictory since though it mentions that the children cannot be exposed to the public, they are authorised to visit an EV charging station, a Railway Station, and a KSRTC Bus Stand. Another ground taken was of violation of natural justice since the date and time of the movement is to be kept secret and communicated privately but the same left the children under a constant, arbitrary threat of imminent police control and effectively curtailing their right to prefer appellate remedies.
After referring to the provisions of the JJ Act, the Court remarked:
"the JJ Act itself recognises that a child may be investigated for a serious/heinous offence and provides a special mechanism for dealing with such cases. There is no provision in the JJ Act which creates immunity from investigation merely because the accused is a child. Indeed, the Rules themselves contemplate investigation material being collected and placed before the Juvenile Justice Board. There is absolutely no bar in conducting investigation in accordance with the procedures of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the BSA, into an offence committed by CCL, but the precaution to be taken is that the process of such investigation shall not infringe the safeguards contained in the JJ Act to protect the interest of CCL."
The Court further added that escorted movement of CCLs is not something not contemplated under the Act:
"Escorted movement of the CCLs is not a procedure unknown to the JJ Act and Rules. Section 95(2) and 95(3) of the JJ Act provides for escorted movement of the CCLs in connection with transfer of the CCLs from one JJB or Child Welfare Committee to another JJB or Child Welfare Committee. The same process could be adopted in the collection of evidence as well. The additional requirement ordered by the JJB to have the throughout presence of LCPO and Child Welfare Officer during the escorted movement of the CCLs, would rule out the apprehension of harassment or coercion on the part of the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the objections raised by the petitioners against their escorted movement ordered by the JJB, are totally unfounded."
Thus, it dismissed the plea.
Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet No. 998/2026
Case Title: X and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 505
Counsel for the petitioners: K. Dhruv Kumar, K. Sudhinkumar, Shakthi Prakash, Harikrishnan M.S.
Counsel for the respondents: Asaf Ali - Director General of Prosecution, Rasheed C. Nooranad - Special Government Pleader, Laliza T.Y. - Senior GP