The Supreme Court has overturned a life sentence handed down to a man for murder, ruling that he was a minor at the time of the crime. This significant decision clarifies that individuals can assert their juvenility at any point during criminal proceedings, even after a conviction has been finalized.
Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh emphasized that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 allows claims of juvenility to be made “at any stage,” reinforcing the protection of juvenile rights irrespective of when the issue is raised.
The court stated, “An application for claiming juvenility may be made even after the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been granted against a person and it has attained finality.” This highlights that a final judgment does not preclude claims of juvenility, which are recognized as rights and cannot be waived due to procedural delays.
The ruling referenced prior cases, including Abuzar Hossain Vs State of West Bengal (2012), which affirmed the right to raise juvenility claims at any point in legal proceedings.
The case involved Brijnandan, sentenced to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court in 2022 for a murder committed two decades prior. Following his conviction, Brijnandan asserted he was a minor at the time of the offense in 2002, supported by school records confirming he was only 17 years old.
A detailed inquiry was ordered by the Supreme Court, which verified Brijnandan’s birth date as October 4, 1984, confirming his age at the time of the crime. The inquiry, corroborated by witness statements, led the court to conclude that he qualified for the protections of the Juvenile Justice Act.
In response to objections from the state government regarding the timing of the claim, the court reiterated that the law safeguards juveniles and that such claims cannot be compromised by procedural issues. Citing Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the court upheld Brijnandan’s claim, stating, “The claim of juvenility made by the applicant is upheld, and the conviction recorded against him is set aside.”
This landmark judgment is expected to influence future cases, mandating a thorough re-evaluation of any evidence suggesting juvenility, even after conviction.
