Supreme Court Allows Juvenility Claim Even After Final Disposal; Sets Aside Excess Sentence and Orders Release

A bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar heard Criminal Appeal No. 4229 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2214 of 2022) concerning a long‑running challenge to the sentence imposed on the appellant and the validity of the courts’ treatment of his plea of juvenility. The appeal raised the question whether a plea that the accused was a child at the time of the offence could be entertained “even after the final disposal of the case” under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and whether earlier courts had erred in failing to follow the procedural mandate for determination of age.

The Court allowed the appeal, held that the conviction would stand but set aside the sentence imposed in excess of the statutory upper limit applicable to a juvenile, and directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless required in any other case. The Court found on the material before it — including school certificates and a medical (ossification) report and admissions made by the State in earlier proceedings — that the appellant was a minor (about 14 years) at the time of the offence. The Court emphasised that the plea of juvenility did not attain finality merely because prior adjudications had occurred and observed that procedural and technical hurdles must not be allowed to defeat substantial justice. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Merely because a casual adjudication has taken place, it does not mean that a plea of juvenility cannot be raised subsequently. This is for the simple reason that the plea of juvenility has not attained finality. ... To put it differently, even assuming a plea of juvenility was raised but not considered appropriately at the time of disposal ... a competent Court [may] decide the said issue by following due procedure.” The Court further directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to assist the appellant’s rehabilitation and reintegration upon release.

Background The appellant, Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das, stood convicted for culpable homicide amounting to murder relating to an incident of 15.11.1994. At trial a Section 313 CrPC statement recorded certain particulars in which the appellant was noted as aged “20 years as on 07.03.2001”; the trial court and the High Court relied on such material (and on the fact of a bank account) and imposed the death sentence. The appellant repeatedly raised a plea that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence; that plea reached this Court in earlier rounds (criminal appeal, review, curative and mercy petitions). A Presidential order in 2012 had commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with a condition that the appellant would not be released until attaining 60 years. Over the years, the appellant produced school documents and a medical ossification certificate indicating he was about 14 years at the time of the offence; at one stage the State itself verified the school certificate in a counter affidavit. Despite these materials, earlier courts either treated the juvenility plea cursorily or found finality had been attained. The appellant also pursued remedial petitions under Article 32 and later Article 226; a writ before the High Court was dismissed on limited grounds. Before the Supreme Court the primary contention was that Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act allowed a claim of juvenility “at any stage, even after final disposal of the case” and that mandatory age‑determination procedure under the Act and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules had not been followed. The Supreme Court accepted that earlier judicial failures had caused “grave injustice,” relied on the statutory scheme (1986, 2000 and 2015 Acts and Rule 12 hierarchy of documents), noted authorities emphasising that “truth is the soul of justice,” and concluded that relief was due. The Court set aside the sentence insofar as it exceeded the statutory limit applicable to a juvenile, maintained the conviction, ordered immediate release if the appellant was not wanted in any other case, and directed state assistance for rehabilitation.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4229 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.(s) 2214 of 2022) Case Title: Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das …Appellant(s) v. Union of India & Anr. …Respondent(s) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Dr. S. Muralidhar, Learned Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. M. Nataraj, Learned Additional Solicitor General; Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Learned Counsel