- hindi news
- National
- SC Finds Murder Convict Who Spent 25 Yrs In Jail To Be Juvenile Orders Release
New Delhi15 minutes ago
The Supreme Court held that due to lack of education the convict could not take advantage of the judicial process.
The Supreme Court, changing its old and presidential decision, has released a convict who was in jail for 25 years. The Supreme Court said that the convict was only 14 years old at the time of the crime 30 years ago. A lot has gone wrong with convict Om Prakash.
Supreme Court Justices MM Sundaresh and Arvind Kumar said in their decision that under the Juvenile Justice Act, he was supposed to be kept in a reform home for a maximum of 3 years, but he spent 25 years in jail. In this too, there were 11 years in which he was waiting to be hanged.
In fact, on November 15, 1994, a former army officer and two members of his family were murdered in Dehradun, Uttarakhand. The court found his servant Om Prakash guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. In 2012, the President commuted the death sentence to 60 years’ imprisonment.
Being considered an adult by having a bank account Before getting the punishment, Om Prakash had told the court that he was a minor at the time of the crime. But his having a bank account became evidence against him. The court accepted that he was an adult and only then his bank account was opened. Later the Supreme Court also rejected his review and curative petition.
Project 39-A of National Law University helped After being in jail for more than 25 years, he will now be able to come out with the help of Project 39-A of National Law University of Delhi. Members of Project 39-A, which provides legal aid to death row convicts, extracted the school records of Om Prakash from Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. This proved that he was only 14 years old at the time of the crime.
High Court refused to hear Before coming to the Supreme Court, Om Prakash had also filed a petition in the Uttarakhand High Court. In this petition, using the bone test report and other evidence, he had proved himself to be a minor at the time of the crime. But the High Court had said that the President has given the decision on the punishment, hence the case will not be heard now.
The Supreme Court has disagreed with this. The Supreme Court has said that if evidence is found that the accused is a minor at any stage of the trial, then the court should adopt legal procedure accordingly.
,
Also read this news related to Supreme Court…
States have money for freebies, not for salaries and pensions of judges.
The Supreme Court commented on the freebies case on January 7. The court said that the states have money to distribute free food, but not to pay the salaries and pensions of judges. State governments have full money for people who do nothing, but when it comes to judges’ salaries they make the excuse of financial crisis. Read the full news…
