Supreme Court Orders Release of Murder Convict Found Juvenile at Time of Offence:

Supreme Court Orders Release of Murder Convict Found Juvenile at Time of Offence The petitioner, Hansraj, convicted of murder in 1984 by the Sessions Court, Sultanpur, invoked Article 32 of the Constitution seeking release from Central Jail, Agra. He relied on this Court’s earlier finding in Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2002 (order dated 08.05.2009), which had already recognised him as a juvenile aged about 16 years at the time of the offence. His custody certificate dated 14 August 2025 reflected that he had been in custody for nearly four years. The petitioner’s date of birth was 10 June 1969, making him 12 years and 5 months old on 2 November 1981, the date of the incident. Though the Sessions Court had initially ordered him to be kept in a children’s home under the Children Act, 1960, following the reversal of his acquittal by the Supreme Court in 2009, he was re-arrested only in 2022 and remained in jail thereafter. He sought enforcement of his rights under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended by Act 33 of 2006, specifically Section 7-A, which permits raising a claim of juvenility at any stage, even after final disposal. Issue Raised: Whether a person found to be below 18 years at the time of the offence, convicted decades earlier under the old Children Act, can claim release under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, after serving more than three years in custody. SC's Ruling: The Apex Court noted that the petitioner was 12 years and 5 months old on the date of the offence, a fact acknowledged in the 2009 judgment restoring his conviction. Referring to Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000, and subsequent judicial precedents, including Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, Dharambir v. State, and Vinod Katara v. State of U.P., the Bench reiterated that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction, and must be recognized if the offender was below 18 years on the date of the offence. The Court held that the petitioner’s continued incarceration beyond the statutory maximum period of three years, as prescribed under Section 15(1)(g) of the JJ Act, amounted to illegal detention and a direct infringement of his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Bench found no justification for the State’s opposition and directed his immediate release, noting that “the petitioner’s liberty has been curtailed not in accordance with procedure established by law.” The writ petition was therefore allowed. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below