SC frees man jailed for 25 years, finds he was a juvenile at time of crime

4 Minutes Read Listen to Article
Share:

January 09, 2025 01:44 IST

x

The Supreme Court on Wednesday found a man, who spent 25 years imprisoned in a murder case, and had exhausted all his legal remedies including a Presidential pardon, to be a juvenile at the time of the crime and ordered his release.

IMAGE: A view of the Supreme Court of India.Photograph: ANI Photo

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar said the convict Om Prakash alias Raju was incarcerated for the past 25 years despite raising a plea of juvenility at the trial court during the time of his sentence but faced rejection.

"We would only state that this is a case where the appellant has been suffering due to the error committed by the courts. We have been informed that his conduct in the prison is normal, with no adverse report. He lost an opportunity to reintegrate into the society. The time which he has lost, for no fault of his, can never be restored," the top court said.

 

Allowing the appeal, the top court held, "The sentence imposed against the appellant in excess of the upper limit prescribed under the relevant Act, shall stand set aside, while making it clear that the conviction shall continue. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case."

The convict was first awarded the death penalty for the murder and the sentence was upheld all the way till the Supreme Court.

He then moved for Presidential pardon and was granted a partial relief on May 8, 2012, as his capital punishment was commuted to life imprisonment with a bar on his release till he turned 60.

The trial court was said to have referred to the man opening a bank account on March 7, 2001, and giving his age as 20 years which was made the basis to hold him major and award the death sentence.

The high court upheld the trial court's decision and the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal later, despite his claim of juvenility.

"The facts as narrated above, speak for themselves. At every stage, injustice has been inflicted by the courts, either by ignoring the documents or by casting a furtive glance. The appellant, despite being illiterate, raised this plea one way or another, right from the trial Court up to the conclusion of the curative petition before this court, the bench said.

The approach of the courts, it said, couldn't be sustained in the eye of law and the bank account was of no relevance under the Juvenile Justice Acts and relevant rules of juvenility.

The bench said Prakash's statements at the time of the hearing on his sentence, would also pale into insignificance, as even then he was a minor at the time of the offence, under both the 2000 and the 2015 laws.

"It must be kept in mind that the entire judicial system is meant for the discovery of the truth, it being the soul of a decision. For doing so, a presiding officer is expected to play an active role, rather than a passive one," Justice Sundaresh, who authored the verdict, said.

Despite the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 being in existence, the court said, its procedural mandate was also not followed by the trial court and the high court.

On the Presidential pardon, the bench said, the executive couldn't be construed to have undertaken an adjudication on the determination of the age of the accused, and with the first prayer being a distinct one invoking Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act, the "high court committed an error in its reasoning".

Even the relevant state rules of Uttarakhand were not duly followed, it said.

"This court could have dealt with the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, as it raised an independent prayer for the enforcement of a right conferred under a social welfare legislation," said the bench.

While Prakash appeal deserved to be allowed, the court clarified it couldn't be construed that the Presidential order was interfered with for it dealt with the failure of the court in not applying the mandatory provisions of the law with specific reference to the plea of juvenility.

"It is not a review of the Presidential order, but a case of giving the benefit of the provisions of the 2015 Act to a deserving person," it said.

Prakash, it appeared, suffered 25 years of jail time -- a period witnessing a significant transformation in the society, making it difficult for him to adjust.

The Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority was directed to proactively identify any welfare scheme of the state or Centre, facilitating his rehabilitation and smooth reintegration into the society upon his release.

Get Rediff News in your Inbox:
Share: