NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the immediate release of a convict who had spent 25 years in prison, acknowledging that all courts, including itself, had erred in rejecting his plea of juvenility. The man, who was just 14 years old at the time of the crime, had been sentenced to death in 2001, with his claims of being a minor dismissed at every stage of litigation until now.
The convict’s juvenility defense, supported by school records and bank account details, was consistently rejected by the trial court, high court, and Supreme Court. Even fresh evidence, including a school certificate, was overlooked during multiple appeals, reviews, and curative petitions. In 2012, after his mercy plea to the President, his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment with a stipulation that he would not be released until he turned 60.
Judicial Oversight and Reassessment
With the help of his mother and a social worker, the convict initiated a fresh round of litigation challenging the presidential order. An ossification test conducted during this process confirmed he was around 14 years old at the time of the crime. The Supreme Court finally acknowledged the repeated judicial oversight, admitting that critical evidence of his age had been either ignored or superficially examined.
“The facts speak for themselves. At every stage, injustice has been inflicted by the courts,” stated a bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar. Writing for the bench, Justice Sundresh emphasized that courts must adopt a rehabilitative and reformative approach toward juveniles, viewing them as victims needing protection rather than delinquents to be punished.
Role of Juvenile Justice
Justice Sundresh noted, “A juvenile court is akin to a parent. Its role is to protect and re-educate, not to judge and punish. Courts must prioritize rehabilitation over retribution, ensuring that children who come before them are given a chance to reintegrate into society.”
The bench highlighted that the convict, now an adult, had shown good conduct in prison, with no adverse reports. “He lost an opportunity to reintegrate into society. The time he has lost, for no fault of his, can never be restored,” the court observed.
Rehabilitation and Reintegration
The court directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to proactively assist in the convict’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society. It further stressed that courts must prioritize unearthing the truth, even when procedural or substantive laws seem to hinder justice.
“The court is a search engine of truth, and it must use procedural and substantive laws as tools to facilitate justice, especially in cases involving social welfare legislation,” the bench concluded.
