LexOM PRAKASH @ ISRAEL @ RAJU @ RAJU DAS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 362 : 2025 INSC 43 Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. Union of India and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 4229 of 2024) 08 January 2025 [M.M. Sundresh* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards plea of juvenility raised u/s.9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Headnotes† Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.9(2) – Plea of juvenility – Appellant charged for the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder, for incident occurred in 1994 – On recording of statements in 2001, the appellant stated his age as 20 years – After conviction, the appellant raised the plea of juvenility during the hearing on sentence that he was around 17 years at the time of occurrence – Trial court, relying upon his statement regarding the bank account, presumed that he was major and sentenced him to death – Upheld by the High Court as also Supreme Court – Review Petition thereagainst also dismissed – Mercy Petition before the Governor also rejected – Thereafter, Writ Petition u/Art.32 as also Curative Petition dismissed – Mercy Petition filed before Hon’ble the President of India – During the pendency, 2007 Rules came into effect – Ossification test done and the Medical Age Certificate indicated that the appellant was aged around 14 years at the time of the occurrence – By Presidential Order, death sentence of the appellant commuted to life imprisonment, with caveat that he shall not be released until the attainment of 60 years of age – Subsequent Curative Petition rejected – Appellant then filed Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the Presidential Order and also for seeking relief u/s.9(2) – Writ Petition dismissed holding that the power of judicial review over an executive order passed in exercise of Art. 72 is limited, and the proceedings against the appellant had attained finality – Challenge to: * Author [2025] 1 S.C.R. 363 Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. Union of India and Another Held: No dispute that the appellant was only 14 years old at the time of the commission of the offence – At every stage, injustice has been inflicted by the Courts, either by ignoring the documents or by casting a furtive glance – Appellant, despite being illiterate, raised this plea one way or another, right from the trial court up to the conclusion of the Curative Petition before this Court – Approach of the Courts in the earlier round of litigation cannot be sustained in the eye of law – Statement given by the appellant at the time of the hearing on his sentence, also pale into insignificance, as even then he would have been a minor at the time of commission of the offence, under both the 2000 and the 2015 Acts – Procedural mandate contemplated under the 1986 Act not followed by the courts below – Curative petition dismissed without according any reason – Even the then existing State Rules not duly followed – When the plea of juvenility was raised, it should have been dealt with under the existing laws at the relevant point of time, especially when there exists a tacit and clear admission as to the age of the appellant – This Court could have dealt with the writ petition filed u/Art.32, as it raised independent prayer for the enforcement of a right conferred under a social welfare legislation – In the subsequent writ petition filed before the High Court, two different prayer made, the determination of the appellant’s plea of juvenility and consequent release, or alternatively judicial review of the decision of the President or the Governor and consequent release – Executive cannot be construed to have undertaken an adjudication on the determination of the age of the accused and first prayer being a distinct one invoking s.9(2), the High Court erred in its reasoning – Appellant has been suffering due to the error committed by the Courts – His conduct in the prison is normal, with no adverse report – He lost an opportunity to reintegrate into the society – Time which he has lost, for no fault of his, can never be restored – Thus, the sentence imposed in excess of the upper limit prescribed under the relevant Act set aside, while maintaining the conviction rendered – It is not a review of the Presidential Order, but a case of giving the benefit of the provisions of the 2015 Act – State Legal Services Authority to identify welfare scheme of the State/Central
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.