Supreme Court frees man after almost 25 years in jail on finding he was a juvenile

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the release of a man who had remained in jail for almost 25 years because he was mistakenly treated as an adult when he was convicted in a murder case, whereas he was actually a juvenile when the crime was committed [Om Prakash vs Union of India]..The Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Arvind Kumar granted the man relief even though multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, had earlier confirmed his conviction and sentence.The Bench reasoned that in earlier stages, the courts had not properly examined the contention that he was actually a juvenile, being around 14-17 years old when the crime was committed. This meant that he was eligible for lenient penalties. .The top court proceeded to hold that the plea of juvenility (juvenile persons are not given harsh criminal penalties due to their young age) can be raised at any stage, even after the Supreme Court had affirmed a conviction or sentence, if such a plea has not been properly examined in earlier stages by courts. The Court ruled that "merely because a casual adjudication has taken place" which ignored the plea of juvenility of an accused, another competent court cannot be prevented from setting aside a sentence awarded in violation of the juvenile welfare laws. "This is for the simple reason that the plea of juvenility has not attained finality. So long as the right of a party subsists, one can never say that finality has been attained. In a case where a plea has been raised, but not adjudicated upon, the decision rendered thereunder would not amount to attaining finality," the Court explained. .The Bench added that a mistake by courts in not properly examining the jailed man's plea of juvenility cannot continue to defeat his rights under the Juvenile Justice Act. "At every stage, injustice has been inflicted by the Courts, either by ignoring the documents (which indicated that the man was a juvenile at the time of the crime) or by casting a furtive glance … The approach of the Courts in the earlier round of litigation cannot be sustained in the eye of law," it said. The Court also directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to help the released man in availing appropriate government rehabilitation schemes and to aid his smooth reintegration into the society..This is a case where the appellant has been suffering due to the error committed by the Courts.Supreme Court.The matter concerned a crime that occurred in 1994 when one, Om Prakash was alleged to have murdered his employer and family. When he was arrested in 2001, he told the authorities that he was 20 years old. Documents were also provided to show that he held a bank account.The trial court awarded him the death sentence, after treating him as an adult based on the bank account statement. The High Court too adopted a similar approach and upheld the trial court order, ignoring his plea of juvenility. A Supreme Court confirmed the High Court order, and later dismissed a review petition as well.After that, the President of India dismissed Prakash's mercy plea as well, and thereafter a curative plea before the Supreme Court suffered a similar fate. Prakash's mother then filed a second mercy petition. In 2012, the President commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, but stated that Prakash cannot be released from jail till he is 60 years old. He then tried to move another curative plea before the Supreme Court, but it was dismissed by the Court's Registry as not maintainable. Thereafter, in 2019, he filed a writ petition before the High Court which too came to be dismissed, after which he approached the Supreme Court again in appeal. Meanwhile, a bone ossification test conducted on him indicated that he was around 14 years old when the crime took place. .On January 8, the Supreme Court finally granted him relief on finding that he was only around 14 years when the crime was committed. The Court noted that Section 9 (2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 indicated that the a plea of juvenility can be examined “even after the final disposal of the case.""When such a plea is raised, it shall be recognised and cannot be brushed aside in a casual or whimsical manner," it added. The Court held that this was the heart and soul of the Juvenile Justice Act and must be given its fullest meaning.It emphasised that if a plea of juvenility is raised but not considered appropriately when a Special Leave Petition (before Supreme Court) or a criminal appeal, a review petition, or a curative petition is decided, it would not bar a competent court from deciding on this issue again. "In a country like ours, where society is fragmented due to various reasons including, but not limited to illiteracy and poverty, the role which is assigned to the Court assumes great significance. Sufficient opportunities must be given to the child in conflict with law to get the benefit of the 2015 Act," the Court added. .When a plea of juvenility is raised, it shall be recognised and cannot be brushed aside in a casual or whimsical mannerSupreme Court.The Court also reiterated when juvenile persons are accused of crimes, courts dealing with them are expected to focus on the re-education of juvenile accused rather than on their punishment."The Court is expected to play the role of parens patriae by treating a child not as a delinquent, but as a victim, viewed through the lens of reformation, rehabilitation and reintegration into the society," it said. .The Court proceeded to allow the appeal, adding,"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.".Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar appeared for the appellant. The appeal was filed by Advocate on Record Prateek Chadha and Project 39A-NLU Delhi. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj and Advocate Vanshaja Shukla appeared for the respondents. .[Read Judgment]