New Delhi: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the release of a man convicted for a gory triple murder, of an army officer, his son and his sister, in 1994 in Dehradun, after finding that he was a 14-year-old while committing the offence. The convicted, who was incarcerated for nearly 25 years, secured a favourable order after a losing streak at all fronts in the legal battle, from the trial court to SC, and was also unable to secure his release after filing the mercy petition before the President.
The apex court allowed the juvenility claim even after the Presidential order on May 8, 2012, which commuted the death sentence of the convict to life imprisonment, with a caveat that he shall not be released until the attainment of 60 years of age, and even after his curative petition was dismissed by the apex court, saying “justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth” and “court is a search engine of truth”.
The interesting aspect of the case is that the appellant made several pleas before the courts, which were all rejected: the trial court rejected his plea for juvenility and sentenced him to death, the high court affirmed the trial court’s decision, and even the apex court dismissed his appeal against the high court’s decision.
The spate of rejections remained unabated for him: his review petition was dismissed by the apex court, the Governor of Uttarakhand rejected his mercy plea, and his curative petition, the last resort, raising the claim of being a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence was dismissed by the apex court on February 6, 2006. Then, the appellant’s mother filed a mercy petition before the President.
A subsequent curative petition filed by him was rejected by the registry of the apex court as not maintainable. The high court also dismissed his plea against the Presidential order. The appellant moved the apex court against the high court order.
Today, a bench comprising justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar said at every stage, injustice has been inflicted by the courts, either by ignoring the documents or by casting a furtive glance. The bench said the appellant, despite being illiterate, raised the juvenile plea one way or another, right from the trial court up to the conclusion of the curative petition before this court.
Justice Sundresh, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said the court’s verdict is not a review of the Presidential Order, but a case of giving the benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to a deserving person.
“Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth. It is the truth which transcends every other action. The primary duty of a court is to make a single-minded endeavour to unearth the truth hidden beneath the facts. Thus, the Court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and substantive laws as its tools”, said Justice Sundresh.
The bench said grave injustice has been perpetrated in the present case, on account of the consistent failure on the part of the judicial machinery to recognise and act upon the constitutional mandate vis-a-vis the plea of juvenility
Justice Sundresh stressed that in its journey, the court must discern the truth, primarily from the material available on record in the form of pleadings, and arguments duly supported by documents. “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”, he said.
The bench noted that a child is a product of the present, in need of being moulded, to thrive in the future and the deviant behaviour of a child in conflict with law should be a concern of the society as a whole. “One must not lose sight of the fact that the child is not responsible for an act of crime, but is rather victimized by it. Such a child is nothing but an inheritor of crime, a legacy which it does not wish to imbibe”, it said.
The bench said the court is expected to play the role of parens patriae by treating a child not as a delinquent, but as a victim, viewed through the lens of reformation, rehabilitation and reintegration into the society.
The bench noted that the date of birth in his school records established that he was a juvenile on the date of the offence. School records have the highest value under the Juvenile Justice Act for determining the age of the children in conflict with the law.
The apex court in a way ruled that a jail term or even death sentence of a convict can be overturned at any stage if it is established that the accused was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence.
“Appeal deserves to be allowed in view of the conclusion arrived at, we are inclined to set aside the sentence imposed in excess of the upper limit prescribed under the relevant Act, while maintaining the conviction rendered. It cannot be construed that the Presidential Order is interfered with, as the issue that we are concerned with, is the failure of the Court in not applying the mandatory provisions of the 2015 Act with specific reference to the plea of juvenility”, said the apex court.
The bench said it appears that the appellant has undergone imprisonment for almost 25 years, during which time, the society has undergone the significant transformation which he might be unaware of and find difficult to adjust with.
The apex court directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to play a proactive role in identifying any welfare scheme of the state/central government, facilitating the appellant’s rehabilitation and smooth reintegration into society upon his release.
The legal aid was provided to the convict by National Law School’s Delhi Project 39 A, a criminal justice program which represents prisoners on death row and challenges their convictions and death sentences.
The convict had already spent over two decades in an adult jail, which included 11 years on death row, while as per juvenile law the maximum sentence that could be awarded was 3 years in a reformatory home.
The convict pleaded being a juvenile at all levels of the judiciary, lower court, high court and Supreme Court, but did not have proof of it and therefore he was treated as an adult.
The state counsel led by additional solicitor general K M Nataraj and Vanshaja Shukla said this is an attempt to reopen and re-hear an issue which has attained finality.
