Supreme Court Releases Death Row Prisoner After 28 Years On Finding Him To Be A Juvenile At The Time Of Offence

Noting that under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2015 Act), one cannot be subjected to death penalty and the maximum punishment is three years sentence, a Bench comprising Justice KM Joseph, Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Hrishikesh Roy passed orders to release Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary forthwith, after he has been in detention for over 28 years.

Prosecution’s case

Narayan along with two other accomplices had committed murder of five women (one of whom was pregnant at the time of commission of offence) and two children in Pune. Narayan was arrested from Rajasthan on 05.09.1994 and is in detention for more than 28 years. The Trial Court had convicted and sentenced him to death in 1998. The High Court affirmed the sentence and so did the Apex Court. Thereafter, a review petition was filed, which was eventually dismissed. Subsequently, an application under 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was moved claiming that Narayan was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence. In 2019, the Apex Court directed a Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pune (inquiring judge) to decide the juvenility of the applicant and send a report.

"The instant case reflects gross lethargic and negligent attitude of the State... Keeping in view Section 9(2) of the Act, we have no other option but to refer the matter to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pune, to decide the juvenility of the applicant", the Supreme Court observed in 2019 while directing inquiry on juvenility claim in 2019.

The report received from the inquiring judge confirmed the juvenility of the applicant at the time of commission of the offence.

As per the chargesheet, Narayan was 20 years old at the time of the commission of the offence. According to the certificate of date of birth issued on the 30th January 2019 it is recorded that Narayan was born on 01.02.1982. Therefore, on the date of commission of the offence, Narayan would have been 12 years 6 months old. However, the certificate was issued in the name of one Niranaram. There were also discrepancies in his age reflected in various documents.

Issue before the Supreme Court

The Apex Court dealt with the discrepancies in the name and age of the application.

Analysis by the Supreme Court

The Court noted that in a letter written to the President of India seeking cancellation of death penalty on the issue of juvenility, he was referred to as ‘Niranaram'. Again, in a letter addressed to the Home Department of Maharashtra Government by the Superintendent, Yerawada, Central Jail dated 19.01.2007, described the applicant as Narayan and his date of birth as 01.02.1982. The family card issued by Rajasthan Government to the applicant’s father records his name as ‘Nirana’ and his age as 12 years. A transfer certificate issued by the Education Department records his name as ‘Niranaram’ and his date of birth as 01.02.1982. The ration card issued to the father of the applicants records his son’s name as ‘Niranram’. In a writ petition filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the order of punishment imposed on him on the ground of juvenility, he has described himself as ‘Narayan @ Niranaram, son of Chetanram Chaudhary’. Even the trial court order reflects his middle name as ‘Chetanram’, which is his father’s name. The Court noted that the applicant has been consistent in using his father’s name. On perusal of all relevant documents, the Court opined that the applicant’s original name was ‘Niranaram’ and the onus to prove the same has been discharged by him. It also noted that his plea cannot be rejected on the ground of being a belated claim.

The State assailed that the inquiry report directed by the Court was prepared in a flawed manner and without following the procedure to take evidence laid down in the Cr.P.C. In the present case the Apex Court had directed a Principal District and Sessions Judges to conduct the inquiry within a time period. The inquiring judge had asked a police officer to authenticate the documents provided by the applicant, which in turn was scrutinised by the judge. Thereafter, hearing commenced before the inquiring judge; both the prosecution and the police filed statements. The inquiring judges considered submission and documents on record to make a determination. The principal-in-charge of the school that had provided the certificate had also provided a statement in writing at the inquiry stage vouching the date of birth of Niranaram.

The Court noted that the inquiry was conducted as a fact-finding inquiry and has not followed the procedure of summons trial; there was no examination or cross-examination on oath. It was observed that under Section 9(2) the court is empowered to make an inquiry if it is of the opinion about the juvenility of the accused. No procedure has been prescribed for the Court conducting enquiry.

“We find no flaw in the procedure which has been adopted by the Inquiring Judge. So far as the procedure for making an inquiry by the Court, in our opinion Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act does not prescribe scrupulously following trial procedure, as stipulated in the 1973 Code and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”

On the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the inquiring judge, the Court noted that it had called for the original admission register on the basis of which the birth certificate was issued. Moreover, the ossification test reveals the age to be within the same range as disclosed in the inquiry report. It was not taken note of that as per the 2015 Act, the birth certificate of the school authority takes pre-eminence over other factors in determination of juvenility.

“Once the applicant has discharged his onus, in support of his claim of juvenility by producing the date of birth certificate from the school, the State had to come up with any compelling contradictory evidence to show that the recordal of his date of birth in the admission register was false.”

Noting that it lacked knowledge of child psychology and criminology, the Court refrained from speculating on whether a boy of 12 years could have committed such a gruesome act. The Court accepted the report of the inquiring judge.

For the applicant, Senior Advocate R Basant appeared, who was briefed by Project 39A of National Law University Delhi.

Person Convicted For Rape-Murder Found To Be Juvenile : Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Sentence, Sustains Conviction

Case details

Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra  |Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 157324 of 2018 in Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 1139-1140 of 2000 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 25-26 of 2000| 27th March, 2023| Justice KM Joseph, Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Hrishikesh Roy