Supreme Court Directs Release Of Murder Accused Found To Be Juvenile In 1981 When Crime Was Committed
The Supreme Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution was invoked by the petitioner, who is a murder convict.
Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has applied the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and released an accused who was booked in a murder case of 1981 when he was a juvenile. The Apex Court held that the developments in legislation in relation to juvenile justice introduced by the Parliament from time to time can hardly be overlooked.
The Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution was invoked by the petitioner, who is a murder convict. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner was in custody for a period of 3 years, 10 months and 28 days.
The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “No provision in the 1960 Act has been brought to our notice that creates a legal impediment and, thus, limits our authority to grant relief to the petitioner. Incidentally, the developments in legislation in relation to juvenile justice introduced by the Parliament from time to time can hardly be overlooked. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is the new avatar of Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000. Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000, relevant for the present case, permits raising of a plea of juvenility in any court at any stage and even after final disposal of a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. On the plain terms of Section 7-A, the courts are under an obligation to consider the plea of juvenility and to grant appropriate relief if, at all, in an enquiry it is found that the convict was a juvenile on the date of offence.”
Advocate Parinav Gupta represented the Petitioner while AOR Rohit K. Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The date of birth of the petitioner is June 10, 1969. It was alleged in the First Information Report that the petitioner, along with 5 others, had assaulted the father of the first informant with a knife and lathi and the victim later succumbed to his injuries on the following day. The petitioner came to be arrested but was however, released on bail. As an undertrial, the petitioner was behind bars for 1 month 3 days. The Petitioner and the co-accused were tried by the Special Additional Sessions Judge, and the co-accused were sentenced to life in prison. The Sessions Court, having noted that the petitioner was aged about 16 years, held that he was entitled to the benefit of the Children's Act, 1960. Accordingly, instead of sending the petitioner to jail, he was directed to be kept in a children’s home to give him a chance to reform.
All the convicts, including the petitioner, challenged their conviction before the Allahabad High Court and the appellants were acquitted. The State of Uttar Pradesh, aggrieved by the acquittal, appealed to the Apex Court, and a Coordinate Bench restored the conviction. The petitioner absconded but later came to be arrested. The Petitioner thus sought his immediate release against the conviction order whereby the Petitioner was held to be a child/juvenile, aged about 16 years.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner was 12 years 5 months old on the date of the incident. Apart from one assailant who was armed with a knife, the other assailants had lathis in their hands which were used by them to beat the victim. The victim died as a result of multiple injuries caused by use of a knife as well as lathi. The Bench noted that in the absence of any specific role played by the petitioner, the Sessions Court recorded a conviction against the petitioner by taking aid of Section 149 of the IPC, i.e., he was member of an unlawful assembly which perpetrated an act in furtherance of a common object and, therefore, would be liable thereunder.
“Be that as it may, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than the period permissible in law. Moreover, the purpose for which the Sessions Court directed the petitioner to be kept in a children’s home is no longer feasible now”, it stated.
Reference was made to the judgment in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005), wherein it was held that the JJ Act, 2000 would be applicable to any proceeding which is pending before any Court/Authority initiated under the 1986 Act and pending when the JJ Act, 2000 came into force. Further reference was made to Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) where it was held that all persons who were below the age of eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to April 1, 2001 would be treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the date of commencement of the JJ Act, 2000 and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted.
The Bench also held, “Since there is no quarrel with the fact that the petitioner was a child at the time of commission of the offence and the petitioner having been behind bars for more than 3 years, his liberty has been curtailed not in accordance with procedure established by law. Breach of the right guaranteed by Article 21 is writ large and, hence, the benefit of release from detention ought to be extended to the petitioner.”
Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench ordered the release of the petitioner.
Cause Title: Hansraj v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1211)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Parinav Gupta, Pardeep Gupta, Mansi Gupta, Rakshit Rathi, Anuj Kumar Garg, AOR Mrs. Vipin Gupta
Respondent:AOR Rohit K. Singh, Advocates Neeraj Shekhar, Yashveer Singh, Shivansh Pundir