Juvenility Claim Upheld; Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release of Convict Who Was a Child at Time of Offence

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard a writ petition under Article 32 by a convicted murderer seeking release on the ground that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence and therefore entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice laws. The petitioner challenged continued detention after this Court had restored a Sessions Court conviction and sentence and urged that, being a child at the time of the crime, his prolonged incarceration violated Article 21.

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed immediate release of the petitioner, observing that the statutory scheme under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 required courts to consider a plea of juvenility at any stage and to grant appropriate relief where a person was found to be a juvenile on the date of the offence. The Court noted that the petitioner’s date of birth and his age at the time of the incident were not in dispute and, therefore, no further inquiry was necessary. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further held that the petitioner’s liberty had been curtailed “not in accordance with procedure established by law” and that the “breach of the right guaranteed by Article 21 is writ large,” directing immediate release if the petitioner was not wanted in any other case and permitting prison authorities to act on a downloaded copy of the judgment.

Background

The petitioner, born on 10 June 1969, was alleged to have taken part in an assault on 2 November 1981 which resulted in the death of the victim the next day. An FIR under Sections 302, 149, 147 and 148 IPC led to his arrest on 6 November 1981; he was released on bail on 8 December 1981 after one month three days in custody. He and co-accused were convicted by the Special Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, by a judgment of 14 August 1984 and sentenced on 16 August 1984. The Sessions Court recorded that the petitioner was “about 16 years” and directed that he be kept in a children’s home under the Children Act, 1960. The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, acquitted the appellants on 7 April 2000; the State’s appeal to this Court (Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2002) succeeded and on 8 May 2009 this Court restored the Sessions Court conviction. The petitioner absconded and was arrested on 19 May 2022; a custody certificate dated 14 August 2025 recorded detention of over 3 years 10 months.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was 12 years 5 months at the time of the offence and therefore entitled to juvenile protection, citing precedents including Pratap Singh, Satya Deo and Vinod Katara. The State contended the Children Act, 1960 governed the case and urged that the offence was heinous, that the petitioner had evaded arrest after this Court’s 2009 order, and that discretion should be withheld. The Court found no statutory bar in the 1960 Act to relief, relied on this Court’s jurisprudence that juvenile claims could be raised at any stage, and accepted that the petitioner’s age was undisputed. Applying Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000 and related precedents, the Court concluded that prolonged detention beyond the permissible period violated Article 21 and ordered release.

Case Details: Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 340 OF 2025 (2025 INSC 1211) Case Title: HANSRAJ v. STATE OF U.P. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Parinav Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Neeraj Shekar, Advocate