Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court on January 8 allowed an appeal regarding a plea of juvenility raised by the appellant, convicted of culpable homicide amounting to murder. The Court set aside the sentence imposed in excess of the statutory upper limit for juveniles while maintaining the conviction. The bench ordered the release of the appellant, who has been imprisoned for nearly 25 years, and emphasized his rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The case revolved around whether the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offence, which occurred in November 1994. The appellant claimed to have been 14 years old at the time, relying on documentary evidence including school and transfer certificates and a medical ossification test. The plea of juvenility, although raised multiple times at different stages of the proceedings, was not adequately addressed by the trial court, the High Court, or even during review and curative proceedings before the Supreme Court. The appellant’s claim was supported by documentary evidence and an affidavit submitted by the respondent authorities, acknowledging the appellant’s juvenile status at the time of the offence.

The Supreme Court, through the bench comprising Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar, observed that the judicial system had failed to properly adjudicate the appellant’s plea of juvenility. The Court remarked, “Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth. It is truth which transcends every other action. The primary duty of a court is to make a single-minded endeavour to unearth the truth hidden beneath the facts.”

The bench noted that the principles enshrined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, mandate that juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even after the final disposal of the case. Section 9(2) of the Act ensures this right, allowing for the determination of age even post-conviction.

The factual matrix of the case revealed that the appellant, an illiterate individual, had been sentenced to death by the trial court, a sentence later commuted to life imprisonment by a Presidential Order in 2012. The appellant had consistently raised the plea of juvenility, relying on official documents and medical tests, but these submissions were either overlooked or not adjudicated in accordance with the statutory provisions.

The Court observed the necessity of adherence to procedural requirements under laws aimed at safeguarding juveniles, stating, “The plea of juvenility cannot be brushed aside in a casual or whimsical manner. A due determination must be made by judiciously considering the material available on record.”

In its judgment, the Supreme Court ordered the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to facilitate the appellant’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Specific instructions were issued for identifying welfare schemes under which the appellant could receive assistance for livelihood, shelter, and sustenance, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The appeal was allowed, and the Court ordered the appellant’s immediate release, provided there were no other cases pending against him. The judgement stated, “The failure of the courts in not applying the mandatory provisions of the 2015 Act has caused grave injustice to the appellant, and this court is duty-bound to rectify the same.”

Case Title: Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4229 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.(s) 2214 of 2022)
Bench: Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar

[View/Download order]