Minor Who Was Sentenced To Death, Set Free After 23 Years In Prison

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday ordered the release of a man who was sentenced to death over two decades ago for a triple murder committed when he was a minor. The case exposed significant lapses at various judicial levels, with the courts overlooking clear evidence that established the convict’s age as just 14 at the time of the crime.

Judicial Oversight and Rectification

A bench led by Justice M.M. Sundresh acknowledged the “grave injustice” done to the individual, who had spent nearly 25 years in prison. “The appellant has suffered due to errors committed by the trial court, high court, and even this court. The lost years can never be restored,” the bench noted, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair application of social welfare laws like the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act.

While upholding his conviction for the brutal murders of three individuals in 1994, the court ruled that his incarceration beyond the permissible term for a juvenile was unlawful.

The Case and Errors Along the Way

The convict, who worked as a gardener in the home of a retired Army Colonel in Dehradun, was accused of killing the Colonel, his sister, and son, while injuring the Colonel’s wife. Arrested in 1999 after absconding for five years, he was sentenced to death in 2001. His juvenility claim was dismissed based on a bank record, which erroneously placed his age as 20 at the time of the crime.

This misjudgment persisted through various levels of appeal, despite the submission of his school leaving certificate and other evidence indicating his age. Even a 2006 curative petition, filed after the Uttarakhand government admitted his age was 14, failed to reverse the decision.

In 2012, the President of India commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, with the condition that he remain incarcerated until the age of 60. However, this did not address the fundamental issue of his status as a juvenile at the time of the offense.

Supreme Court’s Intervention

The bench clarified that its ruling was not an interference with the Presidential order but a rectification of judicial oversight. It stressed the importance of applying the JJ Act’s provisions, which mandate special consideration for minors.

“Courts must travel the extra mile to ensure justice for children in conflict with the law. A child is a product of the present and must not be held hostage to their circumstances,” Justice Sundresh remarked.

Rehabilitation and Reintegration

Recognizing the lost years and psychological toll, the court directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to facilitate the convict’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The judgment called for a broader societal responsibility in addressing juvenile delinquency. “A child in conflict with the law is not inherently criminal but is often a victim of circumstances,” the court said, urging stakeholders to adopt a compassionate approach.

Must Read: 2nd Suicide In An Hour In Kota, 20 Year Old JEE Aspirant Ends Life In PG