The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the release of a man who had been sentenced to death more than 23 years ago by an Uttarakhand court in a murder case. The court ruled that “grave injustice” had been done to him by the trial court, high court, and even the Supreme Court itself, all of which had upheld his death sentence despite clear evidence that he was just 14 years old at the time of the crime.
Acknowledging the error made by the courts, the bench led by Justice M.M. Sundresh noted, “This is a case where the appellant has been suffering due to the mistakes of the courts. We have been informed that his conduct in prison has been exemplary, with no adverse reports. He lost an opportunity for reintegration into society, and the time he has lost, through no fault of his own, can never be restored.”
While upholding his conviction for the brutal 1994 murders of three individuals, the bench ordered his release from jail. The court emphasized that constitutional courts must uncover the truth and enforce social welfare laws like the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, which mandates that a person’s minority status be established by the courts.
The bench, which also included Justice Aravind Kumar, stated, “In a country like ours, where society is fragmented by issues like illiteracy and poverty, the role of the courts is crucial. Sufficient opportunities must be provided to children in conflict with the law to benefit from the provisions of the 2015 Juvenile Justice Act.”
The decision followed an appeal by the convict, who had challenged a 2019 Uttarakhand High Court ruling that refused to intervene in a Presidential pardon order. The President had commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, with the condition that he would not be released until the age of 60 in 2040.
Senior advocate S. Muralidhar, who represented the convict, argued that the lower courts had failed to recognize his plea of juvenility throughout the legal process. Despite repeatedly stating he was 14 years old at the time of the crime, his claim was dismissed at every stage. The trial court convicted him in 2001, rejecting his juvenility argument based on a bank cheque book and an account that listed him as 20 years old. This evidence was also used to dismiss his appeals in the High Court and the Supreme Court in 2002.
In subsequent proceedings, the convict produced his school leaving certificate, which showed his date of birth as January 4, 1980. Despite the Uttarakhand government admitting his age as 14, the Supreme Court dismissed his review petition in 2003. His final recourse was a writ petition in 2005, which was also rejected, though the Court allowed him to file a curative petition. The curative petition was dismissed in 2006, even after the government had filed an affidavit confirming his juvenile status.
In light of these proceedings, the Supreme Court noted, “The approach of the courts in the earlier rounds of litigation cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.” It stressed that the courts should have gone the extra mile to ensure the provisions of the 2015 Juvenile Justice Act were properly applied to the case.
Clarifying its position, the bench stated that its decision was not an interference with the President’s executive powers but rather a necessary correction of the legal process to uphold the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. “This is not a review of the Presidential order, but a matter of ensuring the benefits of the 2015 Act are given to a deserving individual,” the court emphasized.
Recognizing that almost 25 years had passed since the crime, the court directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to take a proactive role in identifying welfare schemes to support the convict’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society following his release.
The court added, “A child is a product of the present and needs to be moulded to thrive in the future. Deviant behavior of a child in conflict with the law should concern society as a whole. It is crucial to remember that the child is not the cause of the crime but a victim of it. Such a child inherits a legacy of crime they do not wish to carry forward.”
In its ruling, the court rejected the state’s argument that granting the petition would set a negative precedent, asserting that the judicial system exists to uncover the truth, even when procedural law might obscure it. “When procedural law stands in the way of the truth, the court must find a way to circumvent it,” the court stated.
The crime in question involved the convict, a gardener, murdering a retired Army Colonel, his 65-year-old sister, and his 27-year-old son in Dehradun. The Colonel’s wife survived the attack. The state, represented by advocate Vanshaja Shukla, had highlighted the brutality of the crime and the convict’s five-year abscondence before his eventual arrest in West Bengal in 1999 to justify the severity of his punishment.
