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. 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 on Wednesday. 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”.