Can claim juvenility at any stage: SC frees man sentenced to life
The bench acquitted Brijnandan, who was sentenced to life imprisonment by the apex court in 2022 for a murder committed two decades earlier.
The Supreme Court has acquitted a man two years after sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder because it discovered that the convict was a minor at the time of the crime. Establishing a key point of law regarding juvenile justice, the top court ruled that an individual can claim juvenility at any stage of the criminal proceedings, even after the conviction has become final.
A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh held that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 permit a plea of juvenility “to be raised at any stage”, underscoring that juvenile rights are protected regardless of when the issue is brought to light.
“An application for claiming juvenility may be made even after the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been granted against a person and it has attained finality,” the bench said in the recent judgment.
Emphasising that under Indian law even a final judgment does not bar a claim of juvenility, the court pointed out that juvenility is a right and not subject to waiver due to delays or procedural technicalities.
The bench referenced the Supreme Court’s past rulings, including Abuzar Hossain Vs State of West Bengal (2012), which similarly allowed juvenility claims to be raised at any point in the legal process.
The bench acquitted Brijnandan, who was sentenced to life imprisonment by the apex court in 2022 for a murder committed two decades earlier.
After his conviction was upheld by the top court in 2022, Brijnandan filed an application asserting that he was a minor at the time of the offence in 2002. His claim was supported by school records, which showed he was only 17 years old when the crime took place.
The apex court ordered a detailed inquiry by the special judge in Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, who confirmed Brijnandan’s date of birth as October 4, 1984, verifying that he was indeed 17 at the time of the crime. The inquiry report noted that his date of birth, coupled with witness statements, corroborated his claim. The Supreme Court took into consideration not only his date of birth but also testimonies from his mother and school authorities, concluding that he was entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Rejecting the state government’s objections regarding a belated claim, the court said the law provides juveniles with safeguards that cannot be compromised, even if the claim arises post-conviction. It cited Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which allows for such a claim, regardless of delays in filing or discrepancies in documentation.
“The claim of juvenility made by the applicant, who was arrayed as accused no. 3, is upheld, and the conviction as recorded against him by this Court is set aside, and he stands acquitted,” the bench declared.
This judgment will likely impact future cases, affirming that any evidence suggesting juvenility mandates a careful and comprehensive re-evaluation, even if the person has already been convicted and sentenced by courts, including the Supreme Court.
Recommended Topics