Hansraj vs State of U.P.
Background
The petitioner was convicted of murder in 1984 for an incident from 1981, when, going by his undisputed date of birth (10 June 1969), he was only around 12-16 years old. Decades later, after being taken back into custody, he filed a writ petition directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking immediate release on the ground that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence and should have been dealt with under juvenile justice law rather than tried and sentenced as an adult.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even years after a conviction has become final, because the law (Section 9(2) proviso of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, carrying forward the earlier Section 7-A of the 2000 Act) obliges courts to examine such a claim whenever raised. Since the petitioner's date of birth and his age at the time of the offence were not disputed by the State, no separate inquiry was even needed to establish that he was a child when the offence occurred. Continuing to hold him in custody as an adult convict, the Court held, breached his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. It ordered his immediate release, directing jail authorities to act even on a downloaded copy of the order without waiting for a certified copy.
Lesson Learnt
A genuine claim of having been a minor/juvenile at the time of an offence can be raised and must be examined by courts at any stage, even long after conviction: age at the time of the crime, not at the time of the claim, is what determines whether a person should have been tried as a juvenile.