New Delhi:
Raising questions on the justice system of the country, in a historic decision, the Supreme Court has ordered the release of a prisoner who has been serving a sentence of 25 years in a murder case. Now the Supreme Court has said that the issue of being a minor can be raised at any stage. The Supreme Court has accepted that he was a minor at the time of the incident in 1994. The special thing is that the trial court, the High Court and the Supreme Court itself considered him an adult and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court had also rejected his reconsideration and curative petition.
A bench of Justices MM Sundaresh and Arvind Kumar observed that he was only 14 years old at the time of the crime. The bench said that at each stage, injustice was done by the courts either by ignoring the documents or by taking a sneaky look. The Appellant, despite being illiterate, somehow raised this plea till the conclusion of the curative petition before this Court.
The Supreme Court in a way ruled that if it is found that the accused was a minor on the day of committing the crime then his jail sentence or even death sentence can be overturned at any stage. If suddenly any discovery or any solid evidence is found in this regard. We are told that his conduct in jail is normal and there are no adverse reports. He lost an opportunity to integrate back into society. The time he has lost can never be regained. He has not done any mistake.
No interference in President’s order
The Supreme Court bench upheld the sentence and said that he should be released, rejecting the rest of the sentence. The Court said that the appeal should be allowed in view of the finding that we are inclined to quash the sentence exceeding the upper limit prescribed under the relevant Act, while upholding the sentence.
The Court said, it cannot be held that the Presidential order has been interfered with because the issue with which we are concerned is the failure of the Court to implement the mandatory provisions of the 2015 Act with special reference to the plea of ​​juvenile. Is. Therefore, this is not a review of the President’s order, but a matter of giving the benefit of the provisions of the 2015 Act to an eligible person.
From the custody certificate filed on record it appears that the Appellant has suffered imprisonment for about 25 years, during which there have been significant changes in the society, of which the Appellant may not be aware and may find it difficult to adjust to Could.
The plea that the accused was a minor was not ignored.
In fact, the appellant was sentenced to death in 1994 for the alleged crime of murder. Although he pleaded that he was a minor at the time of sentencing hearing, the trial court considered him an adult. The court admitted that he had a bank account. The Supreme Court also rejected his appeal and confirmed the death sentence. After this he filed a curative petition in the Supreme Court in which the school certificate was produced which showed that he was a minor at the time of the crime. In curative case, the State of Uttarakhand certified that the age of the Appellant was only 14 years at the time of the offence. However, the curative petition was rejected.
Later the appellant filed a mercy petition before the President. In 2012, the President commuted the appellant’s death sentence to life imprisonment, but stipulated that he would not be released until he attained the age of 60. Meanwhile, the Appellant got his bone test done. A medical certificate was issued to him, stating that he was 14 years of age at the time of the crime. He also got information under the RTI Act that it is possible for a minor to open a bank account.
In 2019, he filed a writ petition in the Uttarakhand High Court against the President’s order. The High Court rejected the petition citing the limited scope of judicial review on the President’s order. After this an appeal was made in the Supreme Court in this matter. Project 39 A of NLU Delhi played an important role in this entire matter. He not only sought the school certificate from Jalpaiguri but also prepared former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and senior lawyer S Muralidhar to fight the case.
Also read –
SC refuses to interfere in High Court’s decision regarding police custody period in crimes punishable up to ten years
SC’s ‘full court’ will be held in Visakhapatnam, 25 judges including CJI will brainstorm on judiciary issues
