"The time which he has lost, for no fault of his, can never be restored.” rued the Supreme Court in a significant ruling while ordering the immediate release of a prisoner who had been incarcerated for nearly 25 years after determining that he was a juvenile at the time of the offense committed in 1994.

Allowing an appeal on grounds of grave injustice to the Petitoner at every judicial stage of trial and appeal due to consistent failure on part of the judicial courts, the bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar came down heavily on the courts noting, “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.”

Briefly recalling the facts of the case, the Appellant was initially sentenced to death for a murder allegedly committed in 1994. Although he raised a plea of juvenility during the sentencing hearing, the trial court treated him as an adult, relying on his response recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), where he had given his age as 20 years and submitted that he also has a bank account. On an appeal to the High Court, an attempt was again made to raise the plea of juvenility by stating that the Appellant was required to be tried by a Juvenile Court but once again, the evidence of bank account was relied upon, resulting in the conviction being upheld. Subsequently, the matter reached the Supreme Court, where the Appellant placed reliance upon the birth certificate; despite it, the matter was dismissed.

Consequently, the Appellant filed a Review Petition which too was dismissed. After the said dismissal, a Mercy Petition was filed before the Governor of the State of Uttarakhand, which was also rejected. Thereafter, a Writ Petition was filed before the Supreme Court enclosing a copy of the school certificate, which again was dismissed. After that, he filed a Curative Petition in which a school certificate indicated that he was a minor at the time of the offense. In the Curative Petition, the State of Uttarakhand confirmed through certification that the appellant was only 14 years old at the time of the offense. Despite this, the Curative Petition was dismissed.

Subsequently, the Appellant filed a Mercy Petition before the President. In 2012, the President commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment with the condition that he would not be released until he reached the age of 60.

In the interim, the Appellant underwent an ossification test, which confirmed through a medical certificate that he was 14 years old at the time of the crime. Additionally, he obtained information under the Right to Information Act (RTI), revealing that it was permissible for a minor to open a bank account. In 2019, the Appellant challenged the Presidential order by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court dismissed the petition, citing the limited scope of judicial review over Presidential decisions. Ultimately, the present appeal was filed in the Supreme Court against the High Court's judgment.

During the hearing, the Court directed State (Respondent No. 2) to provide fresh instructions regarding the admission made in the counter affidavit filed during the Appellant's earlier Curative Petition, concerning the school certificate and the ossification test. The State submitted an affidavit reaffirming its earlier position that the Appellant was 14 years old at the time of the offense.

The Supreme Court criticized the approach of the lower courts in the earlier proceedings, finding it legally unsustainable. It rejected reliance on the Appellant's statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, which was recorded solely to gather his particulars. The statement, indicating the Appellant was 20 years old at the time of deposition, logically established that he was 14 at the time of the offense. The Court further noted that the existence of a bank account was irrelevant under the Juvenile Justice laws and related rules.

The Court also observed that notwithstanding the school certificate and a counter affidavit filed by the State certifying the documents furnished by the Appellant to be true were produced in all the hearings, yet the said petition was dismissed without according a reason.

The Supreme Court also criticized the High Court for failing to consider Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which allows the plea of juvenility to be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The bench observed that when the issue of juvenility was raised, it should have been addressed in accordance with the applicable legal framework under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, at that particular point in time.

Commenting on the errors made by all the Courts, the bench stated, “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.”

Thus, after extensive consideration, the Court ordered the immediate release of the Appellant, while clarifying that its ruling was not a reassessment of the 2012 Presidential order but rather a decision to extend the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 to an individual deserving of it.

The Court instructed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to take an active role in identifying and facilitating access to welfare programs offered by both the State and Central Government. These initiatives were to aid in the Appellant's rehabilitation and reintegration into society following his release, with a focus on ensuring his rights to livelihood, shelter, and sustenance as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Additionally, the State was ordered to assist the appellant in accessing relevant welfare benefits.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v State of Uttarakhand Criminal Appeal No. 4229 OF 2024

Advocate for Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Dr. S. Muralidhar, Mr. Prateek K Chadha, AOR & ors

Advocate for Respondents: Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Mr. Shailesh Madiyal & ors