Recently, the Supreme Court allowed a writ petition and directed the immediate release of a convict who was a juvenile at the time of a murder offence. The matter involved a conviction from 1984, and the Court observed that the petitioner’s prolonged detention beyond the permissible period under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, constitutes a clear violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, a minor at the time of the crime, was involved in an incident in 1981 where the victim was assaulted by a group of individuals, resulting in his death. Initially arrested and released on bail as an undertrial, the petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Court in 1984, which recognized him as a juvenile and directed placement in a children’s home instead of a prison. The High Court subsequently acquitted the petitioner and co-accused, but the Supreme Court later reversed this acquittal in 2009. The petitioner evaded arrest for several years and was finally taken into custody in May 2022.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner had been detained for more than three years beyond the period permitted under Section 15(1)(g) of the JJ Act, 2000, rendering his continued incarceration illegal. He relied on precedents, including Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, Satya Deo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing the violation of Article 21.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State, represented by counsel, contended that the crime predated the JJ Act, 2000, invoking the 1960 Children’s Act. It was also highlighted that the offence was heinous, and the petitioner had evaded arrest for over a decade, which, according to the State, militated against granting relief.
Observations of the Court:
The Apex Court noted that the petitioner was only 12 years and 5 months old on the date of the incident, a fact undisputed by the State. The Court underscored that while the petitioner participated in an act of an unlawful assembly, there was no specific evidence linking him individually to the fatal assault. The Court highlighted that the purpose of placing him in a children’s home, as directed by the Sessions Court, was no longer feasible, and continued incarceration had exceeded statutory limits.
The Court referred to its earlier decisions in Pratap Singh, Lakhan Lal v. State of Bihar, and Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), affirming that individuals who were juveniles at the time of the offence are entitled to the benefit of the JJ Act, 2000, and its Section 7-A, which allows juvenility claims to be raised at any stage of proceedings, even after conviction. The Court emphasized that legislative developments concerning juvenile justice could not be overlooked, and there was no legal impediment under the 1960 Act preventing the Court from granting relief.
The decision of the Court:
The Top Court allowed the writ petition and directed the immediate release of the petitioner, provided he is not required in connection with any other case. The Court clarified that the Senior Superintendent of the Central Jail, Varanasi, may act upon a downloaded copy of the judgment without insisting on a certified copy. The Court refused to impose any costs on the parties, observing that the petitioner’s detention had been contrary to the procedure established by law.
Case Title: Hansraj vs. State of U.P.
Case No.: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 340 of 2025
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Parinav Gupta, Pardeep Gupta, Mansi Gupta, Rakshit Rathi, Anuj Kumar Garg, Vipin Gupta (AOR)
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Rohit K. Singh (AOR), Neeraj Shekhar, Yashveer Singh, Shivansh Pundir
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
