The Supreme Court of India on Thursday ordered the immediate release of Hansraj, a murder convict who was a juvenile at the time of the offence in 1981 and has been incarcerated for more than the maximum three-year period permissible under juvenile justice law. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, held that the petitioner’s continued detention was a clear breach of his fundamental right to life.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on November 2, 1981, under Sections 302/149, 147, and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner, Hansraj, along with five others, was accused of assaulting a man with a knife and lathis, leading to the victim’s death the following day. At the time of the incident, the petitioner’s date of birth being June 10, 1969, made him 12 years and 5 months old.
Hansraj was arrested on November 6, 1981, and granted bail on December 8, 1981, having spent 1 month and 3 days in custody as an undertrial.
On August 14, 1984, the Special Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, convicted Hansraj and the co-accused of murder. In its sentencing order of August 16, 1984, the Sessions Court noted that Hansraj was about 16 years old and entitled to the benefit of the Childrens Act, 1960. Consequently, instead of a jail sentence, the court directed him to be kept in a children’s home “to give him a chance to reform himself.”
All convicts appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which acquitted them on April 7, 2000. However, the State of Uttar Pradesh challenged this acquittal in the Supreme Court. On May 8, 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the acquittal and restored the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court.
Following this judgment, the petitioner absconded and was arrested only on May 19, 2022. As per the custody certificate, he has been in custody for 3 years, 10 months, and 28 days.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. Parinav Gupta, counsel for the petitioner, argued that Hansraj was entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act, 2000). He contended that Section 15(1)(g) of the Act prescribes a maximum detention period of three years for a juvenile. Therefore, the petitioner’s detention beyond this period was illegal and a violation of his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. He cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, Satya Deo @ Bhoorey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh to support his arguments.
Opposing the petition, Mr. Neeraj Shekar, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that since the crime occurred in 1981, the Childrens Act, 1960, should apply, not the JJ Act, 2000. He further contended that the offence of murder is heinous and the petitioner was not entitled to mercy. He also pointed out that the petitioner had absconded for years after the Supreme Court’s 2009 order, demonstrating culpability, and urged the court to refuse exercising its discretion in his favour.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner’s age at the time of the offence was an undisputed fact, even acknowledged in the court’s own 2009 order. The bench noted that the Sessions Court had convicted the petitioner with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC as a member of an unlawful assembly, with no specific role in the assault being attributed to him.
The court found that “the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than the period permissible in law.” It also remarked that the original purpose of sending him to a children’s home was “no longer feasible now.”
The judgment heavily relied on Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000, which allows a claim of juvenility to be raised “before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case.” The court affirmed its obligation to consider such a plea.
Citing the Constitution Bench decision in Pratap Singh, the court reiterated that the JJ Act, 2000, would apply to proceedings that were pending when the Act came into force. Further, referring to Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, the bench stated that any person below eighteen at the time of the offence would be treated as a juvenile, regardless of when the claim is raised.
The court concluded that since the petitioner’s status as a child at the time of the offence was not in dispute, his liberty had been curtailed without the due procedure of law. “Breach of the right guaranteed by Article 21 is writ large and, hence, the benefit of release from detention ought to be extended to the petitioner,” the judgment stated.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and ordered the immediate release of Hansraj from Central Jail, Agra, provided he is not wanted in any other case.
