The Supreme Court ordered the release of a convict in the 1994 triple murder case, noting he was a juvenile, just 14 years old, at the time of the crime. The apex court observed that he had already served over 25 years in prison. The decision was made under provisions of juvenile justice laws. This ruling highlights the court’s stance on rehabilitative justice for juveniles.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ordered the release of a man convicted in 1994 for the beheading of a retired colonel, his son, and sister in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, determining that he was a juvenile, just 14 years old, at the time of the crime.
After serving 25 years in prison and undergoing a second round of litigation, a bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar stated,
“At every stage, injustice has been inflicted by the courts, either by overlooking documents or by glancing over them superficially.”
The bench acknowledged that a judicial error should not prevent an individual from receiving their rightful benefits. While maintaining the man’s conviction, it set aside his sentence for exceeding the upper limit prescribed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The justices remarked,
“Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth. It is the truth that transcends every other action. The primary duty of a court is to strive to uncover the truth hidden beneath the facts. Thus, the court acts as a search engine of truth, using procedural and substantive laws as its tools.”
The bench observed that the appellant, despite being illiterate, consistently raised the issue of his juvenility from the trial court through to the conclusion of his curative petition in this court.
The bench stated,
“The approach of the courts in the earlier rounds of litigation cannot be upheld in the eyes of the law,”
Previously, the appellant had been sentenced to death, and both his review and curative petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court.
However, following a Presidential Order on May 8, 2012, his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, with the stipulation that he would not be released until reaching the age of 60.
In 2019, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the Presidential Order and seeking relief under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Juvenile Justice Act. The High Court dismissed his petition, asserting that the power of judicial review over an executive order made under Article 72 of the Constitution is limited, and that proceedings against the appellant had reached finality.
Before the Supreme Court, his counsel, Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, argued that the plea of juvenility, raised at every stage, had not been adjudicated, resulting in significant injustice to the appellant. He pointed out that the appellant had been unfairly incarcerated, including periods of solitary confinement, which he deemed untenable and illegal. Citing a school certificate from Jalpaiguri, the counsel requested the appellant’s immediate release along with adequate compensation for the loss of formative years spent in prison.
The state’s counsel, led by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj and Vanshaja Shukla, contended that this was an attempt to reopen and re-hear an issue that had already attained finality.
Read Also: 2017 Murder Case: Thane Court Acquits Two Accused
However, the court found that the procedural requirements outlined by law were not adhered to by either the trial court or the High Court, noting that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after proceedings have concluded.
The bench remarked,
“This is a case where the appellant has suffered due to errors committed by the courts. He lost the opportunity to reintegrate into society. The time he has lost, through no fault of his own, can never be restored,”
The court clarified that its order does not review the Presidential Order but instead aims to extend the benefits of the 2015 Act to a deserving individual.
The bench emphasized,
“In light of this constitutional mandate, the court is expected to act as parens patriae, treating a child not as a delinquent but as a victim, through the lens of reformation, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society,”
The court instructed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to take a proactive role in identifying any welfare schemes from the State or Central Government to facilitate his rehabilitation and smooth reintegration into society upon his release, particularly focusing on his rights to livelihood, shelter, and sustenance as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.