In a resounding affirmation of justice and reformation, the Supreme Court of India has ordered the release of Om Prakash alias Israel alias Raju alias Raju Das, incarcerated for 25 years for an offence committed in 1994. The Court determined that he was a juvenile at the time of the crime, a finding overlooked by multiple judicial forums over the decades.
The bench comprising Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar described the failure to recognise the appellant’s juvenility as “grave injustice,” and criticised the judiciary’s inability to adhere to its constitutional duty of protecting the rights of children. “Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth,” the Court observed, stressing that “truth must prevail to protect the innocent.”
Case Background
Om Prakash was convicted of culpable homicide amounting to murder for an incident on 15 November 1994. During the trial, he was sentenced to death despite claiming he was a minor at the time. The trial court dismissed his plea of juvenility, citing his ability to operate a bank account as evidence of majority—a conclusion later echoed by the High Court and Supreme Court.
The appellant continued to assert his juvenility through reviews, curative petitions, and even a mercy plea, supported by documents such as school certificates and an ossification test indicating he was 14 years old at the time of the offence. These efforts went unheeded for years. In 2012, his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by a Presidential Order, but with a caveat that he would remain incarcerated until the age of 60.
Legal Issues
1. Claim of Juvenility: Under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after final disposal of a case. The appellant raised this claim consistently, but it was dismissed without proper adjudication.
2. Systemic Lapses in Judicial Review: The courts relied on extraneous evidence, such as the appellant’s bank account, instead of following mandatory procedures under juvenile justice laws. The Court highlighted that even minors could open accounts under existing banking rules, rendering this reasoning flawed.
3. Retrospective Application of Juvenile Justice Laws: The Court deliberated on the applicability of juvenile justice provisions introduced after the appellant’s trial, such as the 2000 and 2015 Acts, which provide protections even for cases where juvenility is determined post facto.
Court Observations
The Supreme Court delivered a scathing critique of the systemic failures that resulted in the prolonged incarceration of the appellant. It emphasised the judiciary’s role in actively seeking truth, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals. The Court remarked:
– “Truth is the soul of justice. The primary duty of a Court is to make a single-minded endeavour to unearth the truth hidden beneath the facts.”
– “Justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done, particularly for those whom society marginalises.”
– Referring to juveniles, the Court noted: “A delinquent who appears before the Court is to be protected and re-educated, rather than judged and punished.”
The bench condemned the earlier reliance on procedural technicalities that obstructed substantive justice. Court stated: “Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice.”
Decision and Directions
The Court set aside the appellant’s sentence exceeding the upper limits prescribed under juvenile justice laws, while maintaining his conviction. It ordered his immediate release, noting that he had already spent 25 years in prison—far beyond the maximum permissible sentence for a juvenile.
Recognising the appellant’s long incarceration as a consequence of judicial errors, the Court directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to ensure his smooth reintegration into society. “The appellant has lost an opportunity to reintegrate into the society. The time which he has lost, for no fault of his, can never be restored,” the judgment observed. The Authority was tasked with identifying welfare schemes and providing him access to livelihood, shelter, and sustenance under Article 21.
