InWrit Petition (CRL.) No. 429 of 2022 -SC- Supreme Court orders immediate release of juvenile convict who spent over 12 years in jail after finding him to be a minor at the time of crime
Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Sanjay Kumar [05-09-2023]

Read Order: MakkellaNagaiah V. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 7, 2023: In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has ordered the release ofa juvenile convict, who had spent over 12 years in prison.MakkellaNagaiah (petitioner herein), was convicted for murder in 2009 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the crime and that he had already served more than the maximum statutory punishment under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

In this present writ petition, the petitioner had sought verification of his claim of juvenility and consequential orders as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

Athree-judge bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that in an incident dated 21.12.2005, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused along with others. By its judgment dated 15.12.2009, the III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam, had convicted the petitioner and other co-accused persons, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and had sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. The petitioner had appealed against the conviction and the sentence to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which, by its judgment dated 10.04.2014, had dismissed the appeal and upheld the aforesaid conviction. The petitioner had also filed a SLP against the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and the High Court, and the Supreme Court, by its order dated 12.07.2022, had dismissed the SLP, according finality to the conviction and the sentence.

Two months after the dismissal of the SLP, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to the State to verify his claim of juvenility and to pass necessary consequential orders.

Notably, the Supreme Court, acknowledging that the question of juvenility could be raised at any stage in any court, issued notice in the writ petition.

Since the juvenility was based on the petitioner's school documents, the Supreme Court had considered it appropriate to direct the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), to conduct an inquiry regarding the petitioner's claim of juvenility. In the report dated 13.05.2023, the FAC II Additional Sessions Judge, had conclusively determined that the date of birth of the petitioner was 02.05.1989.

Considering this date of birth, the petitioner was found to be 16 years and 7 months old on the date of the crime, thereby establishing him as a juvenile under the law at the time of the offense.

The bench observed that in view of Section 16 read with Section 15(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice Act, the maximum period for which the petitioner could have been in custody was three years. However, since the plea of juvenility was raised for the first time in the present writ petition, the criminal law process, which began in 2005, resulted in the petitioner being convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment concurrently by the Trial Court, the High Court, as well as the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the petitioner had already served more than 12 years of imprisonment.

Considering these circumstances, the writ petition was allowed, and it was directed that the petitioner be released immediately.