Supreme Court Orders Release of Man Imprisoned as Adult, Despite Being Juvenile

Supreme Court heard an appeal and delivered a judgment in a unique case where a grave injustice has occurred due to the court's failure to acknowledge and act upon a claim of juvenility of the accused. The judgment emphasizes the paramount importance of truth in the judicial process and the need to protect the rights of juveniles in conflict with the law. The Court sets aside the said trial and acquits the appellant of the sentence awarded.

A boy by the name Om Prakash (now an Adult) was convicted of culpable homicide amounting to murder while he was a minor. The case highlights a critical issue of consistent failure of the Judicial System to recognize and act upon claims of juvenility. The convict-appellant Om Prakash contended that he was a minor on the date of the incident i.e. November 15, 1994. The case once again has brought into sharp focus how important determination of age is in the criminal justice delivery system and as to how easily a minor may be treated as a major.

Initial Trial and Conviction: Om Prakash was convicted for murder and sentenced to death. At the trial, he was called upon to state his personal particulars under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and gave his age as 20 years on March 7, 2001. The trial court, relying on this statement along with the fact that Om Prakash had a bank account, presumed that he was a major at the time of the crime. This was despite Om Prakash claiming he was 17 on the date of the incident.

Appeals and Rejections: The appeals before the High Court and then the Supreme Court were rejected, and even a review petition was dismissed. His plea of juvenility was brushed aside or disposed of. The gravity of the offence also came up for consideration by the courts, and they relied upon a bank account opened by Om Prakash.

Multiple Attempts and a Presidential Order: Om Prakash continued to seek justice through various legal avenues, including filing a writ petition, a curative petition, and even a mercy petition before the President of India. The President finally commuted the sentence of death to life imprisonment but added that he would not be released before he attained the age of 60 years.

The Discovery of Truth: Crucially, in the course of these various proceedings, school records emerged, which established that Om Prakash was 14 years old on the date of the crime. Even the State conceded this much in a counter affidavit to one of his curative petitions. This was further corroborated by a medical ossification test also.

This finding lead the Supreme Court taking note of the successive failures in the judicial system, and relying upon the documents produced proving Om Prakash's age, intervened to correct the injustice. The Court emphasized the importance of the truth in the judiciary system and the court as a search engine for truth. The court also highlighted the paramount duty of a judge to actively seek out the truth.

Juvenile Justice Act: The Court discussed various Juvenile Justice Acts in India, which have been there for the protection of children in conflict with the law. It once again held that the juvenile offender must be dealt with for the purpose of reformation and rehabilitation, with a view to his integration into society and as a victim of circumstance rather than a criminal. Special care for the children as enshrined in the Constitution was emphasized by the court.

Retroactive Application: The Court held that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Acts should be given retroactive application to benefit the juveniles. Even if a juvenile has attained majority during the course of an inquiry, he must be treated as a juvenile.

Finality of the Plea of Juvenility: While entertaining such pleas, the Court has clarified that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage in proceedings and even after the final disposal of a case. The Apex Court emphasized that in so far as the right of a party to raise a plea of juvenility subsists, one cannot claim that finality has been attained. If the plea is not treated correctly, or as an application under the law, the order would not be termed as a final one.

Hierarchy of Documents for Age Determination: The Apex Court discussed hierarchy of documents for age determination, as laid down by Juvenile Justice Rules and further emphasized that where a matriculation certificate or any other reliable document is available, medical opinion need not be sought.

The rule of evidence Admission: The court held that as an admission would be clear, becoming unequivocal will amount to a kind of best evidence and may prove even a fact in issue.

Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit: The Apex Court held that no one shall be prejudiced by the act of court: a mistake of the court is no ground if a person lost one rightfully.

Presidential Order: The Court further explained that although it is not meddling with the Presidential Order, it is just correcting the failure of the Courts to apply the relevant laws and it is not reviewing a Presidential Order but giving the benefit of the provisions of the 2015 Act to a deserving person.

The Court ordered the immediate release of Om Prakash, directing the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to assist him in his rehabilitation and integration into society.

The Apex Court noted that the courts below had continuously failed to ascertain and act upon the claim of juvenility by Om Prakash, and additional emphasis has been laid stating that the court's fundamental duty is to dig the truth, and thereby the procedural law shall not be an obstacle to the same.

The Court further clarified that the entire judiciary is a means for the discovery of the truth, and a juvenile in conflict with the law is supposed to be treated as a victim for reformation and rehabilitation.

Reiterating that a plea of juvenility may be raised at any stage of even the judicial proceedings, the Apex Court pointed out that the courts below have relied upon the statement of Om Prakash under section 313 of CrPC and the bank account, and the State itself had admitted that the documents provided by Om Prakash confirming his age to be true.

Given that the appellant - Om Prakash (JCL) - will have to be rehabilitated in society after coming out of prison, the sentence exceeding the upper limit as prescribed under the Act in question is hereby set aside and he is ordered to be released forthwith, the conviction to continue. Coram: Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar
Between: Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju Das Vs Union Of India & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 08-01-2025