MAKKELLA NAGAIAH versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 250 · Decided: 05-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANJAY KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 250 : 2023 INSC 800
250
CASE DETAILS
MAKKELLA NAGAIAH
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 429 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2023
 
[B. R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASHIMHA 
AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Claim of petitioner for juvenility after 
conviction u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – 
Petitioner and other co-accused convicted u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC and 
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life – High Court upheld the 
conviction and sentence – SLP also dismissed – Petitioner claimed 
juvenility – The Sessions Judge was directed to conduct an enquiry 
and to submit the report:
Held: The Additional Sessions Judge submitted the report after 
recording necessary evidence by summoning the concerned oﬃ  cials for 
the production of school records – The report of the Additional Sessions 
Judge conﬁ rmed the petitioner’s juvenility at the time of commission of 
the oﬀ ence – The report has categorically come to the conclusion that 
the date of birth of petitioner is 02.05.1989 – If the date of birth of the 
petitioner is 02.05.1989, he was 16 years 7 months old as on the date 
of the crime, i.e., 21.12.2005 – In view of s.16 r/w. s.15(1)(g) of the 
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the maximum period for which the petitioner 
could have been in custody is three years – The petitioner has already 
undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment – Accepting the report, 
the petitioner can no longer be incarcerated – Petitioner directed to be 
released forthwith. [Paras 5, 6, 7 and 8]
251
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 
429 of 2022
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.
Appearances:
Rishi Malhotra, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Sriharsha Peechara, Duvvuri Subrahmanya 
Bhanu, Ms. Pallavi, Ms. Kriti Sinha, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advs. for the 
Respondent.
JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
1. This is a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
Petitioner seeks veriﬁ cation of his claim of juvenility and consequential 
orders as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection 
of Children) Act, 20001. As such a plea can be raised at any stage, we 
called for a report after due enquiry. Having perused the report of the 
Additional Sessions Judge conﬁ rming the petitioner’s juvenility at the 
time of commission of the oﬀ ence, we have allowed the Writ Petition and 
directed the release of the petitioner, who has undergone much more than 
the maximum statutory punishment under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, 
i.e., three years of incarceration.
2.  For an incident dated 21.12.2005, the petitioner was arrayed as an 
accused along with others in Crime No. 228/05, P.S. Sathupally, (A.P.). By 
its judgment dated 15.12.2009, the III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), 
Khammam, convicted the petitioner and other co-accused persons, inter alia, 
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and 
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. The petitioner appealed 
against the conviction and the sentence to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 
which by its judgment dated 10.04.2014, dismissed the appeal and upheld 
1 
Hereinafter ‘Juvenile Justice Act, 2000’.
MAKKELLA NAGAIAH v. 
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
252
the aforesaid conviction. The petitioner also ﬁ led a Special Leave Petition 
against the concurrent ﬁ ndings of the Sessions Court and the High Court, 
and this Court by its order dated 12.07.2022 dismissed the SLP, according 
ﬁ nality to the conviction and the sentence.
3. Two months after the dismissal of the SLP, the petitioner ﬁ led the 
present Writ Petition praying that a Writ of Mandamus be issued to the State 
to verify his claim of juvenility and to pass necessary consequential orders.
4.  As it is well settled that the question of juvenility can be raised 
before any Court and at any stage, as prescribed under Section 7A(1) of the 
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and conﬁ rmed by judicial precedents2, this Court 
issued notice in the Writ Petition. The State ﬁ led an aﬃ  davit through the 
Inspector of Police, PS Sathupally, Khammam District, Telangana, stating 
that the petitioner studied at the M.P.P. School, Putrela Main, Village of 
Vissannapet Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, from First t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.