NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has directed for release of a man convicted of killing a retired colonel, his son and sister by beheading them with a sword in a gory incident in Uttarakhand's Dehradun district in 1994, finding that he was a juvenile aged 14 years at the time of inAfter 25 yrs in jail in 1994 triple murder case, SC finds convict as juvenile; orders releasecident.
The relief came to the man after 25 years of imprisonment and second round of litigation.
SC Rules Juvenility in 1994 Triple Murder Case, Grants Release After 25 Years
Dealing with his plea arising out of denial of any relief by the High Court, a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar said, "at every stage, injustice has been inflicted by the courts, either by ignoring the documents or by casting a furtive glance."
The bench said in such cases, 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.
Juvenile Justice Act Applied in Landmark SC Ruling on 1994 Dehradun Murders
Thus, a Juvenile Court is a species of a parent. A delinquent, who appears before the Court, is to be protected and re-educated, rather than be judged and punished. It is for this purpose, that the Court will have to press into service the benevolent provisions for rehabilitation introduced by the Legislature. A Juvenile Court assumes the role of an institution rendering psychological services. It must forget that it is acting as a Court, and must don the robes of a correction home for a deviant child, the bench said.
Holding that a mistake committed by the court cannot stand in the way of one’s rightful benefit, the bench maintained his conviction but set aside his sentence for being excess of upper limit prescribed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Also Read: Gravity of offence not relevant when considering bail for juvenile [Read Order]
The bench said, "Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth. It is truth which transcends every other action. The primary duty of a court is to make a single-minded endeavour to unearth the truth hidden beneath the facts. Thus, the court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and substantive laws as its tools."
The bench noted 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 approach of the courts in the earlier round of litigation cannot be sustained in the eye of law," the bench said.
Earlier, the appellant was sentenced to death penalty and his review and curative petition were also dismissed by the apex court. However, by a Presidential Order issued on May 08, 2012, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, with a caveat that he would not be released until the attainment of 60 years of age.
The court said, "Power under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution is not appellate or revisional in nature. It is an executive power travelling on a different channel, which cannot be termed as a power of appeal or review. A challenge to the exercise of power under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution would involve limited judicial review on grounds such as inadequate application of mind, amongst others."
The court said when a challenge is made to an executive order, with an independent prayer for exercising the power under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act, they being distinct and independent, refusal of judicial review of the former will not obliterate the mandatory duty pertaining to the latter.
In 2019, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging the Presidential Order and seeking another relief on the basis of Section 9(2) of the 2015 Juvenile Justice Act. The High Court dismissed his plea, holding that the power of judicial review over an executive order passed in exercise of Article 72 of the Constitution is limited, and the proceedings against the appellant had attained finality.
Also Read: SC releases woman in murder case on ground of juvenility [Read Judgment]
Before the apex court, his counsel senior advocate S Muralidhar contended a plea of juvenility, raised at every stage has not been adjudicated, which meted out grave injustice to him. He has been unfairly kept under incarceration including the earlier solitary confinement, which is obviously untenable and illegal. Relying upon school certificate from Jalpaiguri, the counsel sought his immediate release with adequate compensation for the loss of formative years suffered by him in the prison.
The state counsel led by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj and Vanshaja Shukla said this is an attempt to reopen and re-hear an issue which has attained finality.
The court, however, held the procedural mandate contemplated under the law was also not followed by the trial court and the High Court, as plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage and even after conclusion of the proceedings.
"This is a case where the appellant has been suffering due to the error committed by the courts. He lost an opportunity to reintegrate into the society. The time which he has lost, for no fault of his, can never be restored," the bench said.
The court clarified its order is not a review of the Presidential Order, but a case of giving the benefit of the provisions of the 2015 Act to a deserving person.
"In view of the said constitutional mandate, 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," the bench said.
The court directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to play a proactive role in identifying any welfare scheme of the State or Central Government, facilitating his rehabilitation and smooth reintegration into the society upon his release, with particular emphasis on his right to livelihood, shelter and sustenance guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In its judgment, the bench emphasised, the plea of juvenility can be raised before any court, meaning thereby that there is no question of finality in this regard until and unless an application filed, invoking this provision, is determined in accordance with the 2015 Act and the relevant rules.
"When such a plea is raised, it shall be recognised and cannot be brushed aside in a casual or whimsical manner. A due determination must be made by judiciously considering the material available on record. The court is expected to travel an extra mile to satisfy its conscience as to whether the case on hand would attract the provisions of the 2015 Act and, for the aforesaid purpose, the process enumerated thereunder will have to be necessarily followed," the bench said.
The court pointed out merely because a casual adjudication has taken place, it does not mean that a plea of juvenility cannot be raised subsequently. 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. Likewise, when such a plea is not treated as one under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act in compliance with the procedural mandate specified thereunder, an order rejecting such a plea would not be termed as a final one. To put it differently, even assuming a plea of juvenility was raised but not considered appropriately at the time of disposal of a Special Leave Petition/Statutory Criminal Appeal, a Review Petition, or a Curative Petition thereafter, it would not bar a competent Court from deciding the said issue by following due procedure, the bench said.
