New Delhi, Feb 7 In 1986, a youth was charged with murder but acquitted by a trial court in 1990. In 2007, the high court reversed his acquittal and convicted him for murder and in 2011, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and he was sent to jail to serve life imprisonment. After he spent over 8 years behind the bars, the top court on Monday ordered his release, noting that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the incident.
Advocate Rishi Malhotra, representing the petitioner, submitted before a bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul that the Juvenile Justice Board of Uttar Pradesh's Baghpat district examined the statements by his mother and the principal of his school, who validated the relevant documents, which supported his claim for being a juvenile at the time of incident.
The top court had directed the board to scrutinize petitioner's claim, whether he was a juvenile when the incident occurred, and bring on record its findings.
Surprisingly, the petitioner did not raise the plea of juvenility at any stage of the trial.
After spending more than 8 years in jail, he again moved the top court raising the plea of juvenility.
"A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after the final disposal of the case. It may be raised for the first time before this court as well after the final disposal of the case. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. The claim of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if not pressed before the trial court and can be raised for the first time before this court though not pressed before the trial court and in the appeal court," he argued.
The plea contended that it is not in dispute that the date of the incident happens to be August 19, 1986 and as per the various documents on record - the matriculation certificate as well as the birth certificate issued by the state government and also the driving licence issued by ARTO, Baghpat, the date of birth of the petitioner happens to be August 10, 1970.
"Meaning thereby, as on the date of the incident, the petitioner was approximately 16 years and was thus, juvenile at the time of incident," it added.
Malhotra submitted that since it is established that his client was juvenile therefore maximum sentence was 3 years, which he had already undergone and insisted on his immediate release.
The bench, also comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh accepted the findings of Juvenile Justice Board and ordered the release of the petitioner.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor