'Time He Lost Can't Be Restored' : Supreme Court Frees Prisoner After 25 Years, Finds He Was A Minor At The Time Of Offence
In a remarkable judgment, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 8) ordered the release of a prisoner, who has been under incarceration for nearly 25 years, after finding that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence in the year 1994.
A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar found that he was was only 14 years old at the time of the commission of the offence.
The appellant before the Supreme Court, Om Prakash, was initially sentenced to death for the offence of murder alleged to have been committed in the year 1994. Although he raised the plea of juvenility at the time of sentence hearing, the trial court treated him as a major, having regard to a reply given by him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the fact that he had a bank account. The High Court also affirmed the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court too dismissed his appeal, affirming the death sentence. After that, he filed a curative petition in the Supreme Court, producing a school certificate, showing him to be a minor at the time of the offence. In the curative petition, the State of Uttarakhand certified that the appellant was only 14 years old at the time of the offence. However, the curative petition was dismissed.
Later, the appellant filed a mercy petition before the President. In 2012, the President commuted the appellant's death sentence to life imprisonment but with a condition that he should not be released until he attained the age of 60 years.
Meanwhile, the appellant got an ossification test done on him and a medical certificate was issued to him stating that he was aged 14 years old at the time of the crime. He also got information under the RTI Act that it was possible for a minor to open a bank account. In 2019, he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand against the Presidential order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition citing limited scope of judicial review over Presidential orders. The present appeal was filed against the said judgment of the High Court.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court asked the State to obtain fresh instructions on its earlier admission in the curative proceedings regarding the juvenility of the appellant. The State reiterated its stance that he was a minor.
Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court observed :
"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."
The judgment authored by Justice Sundresh stated that the approach taken by the Courts in the earlier proceedings cannot be sustained. There could not have been any reliance on the statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, particularly when he was asked to give his particulars for the purpose of recording his statement. Even the said statement shows that he was 20 years of age at the time of making his deposition, which could only mean that he was 14 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence, the Court said.
The Supreme Court also faulted the High Court for not taking note of Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, which specifies that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage. When the plea of juvenility was raised, it should have been dealt with under the existing laws at the relevant point of time(2015 Act).
Lamenting that the errors committed by the Courts resulted in the appellant's imprisonment for nearly 25 years, the Court observed :
"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. The time which he has lost, for no fault of his, can never be restored."
While ordering his immediate release, the Court clarified that its judgment was not a review of the 2012 Presidential order but a case of giving the benefit of the provisions of the 2015 Act to a deserving person.
The 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, with particular emphasis on his right to livelihood, shelter and sustenance guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State was also directed to assist him in availing the benefit of any welfare scheme.
Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar appeared for the appellant. Project 39A of National Law University Delhi provided him with legal assistance.
ASG KM Nataraj appeared for the State.
Case Title : Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v State of Uttarakhand
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 35
Click here to read the judgment