Vijendra Singh v. State of U.P.
Background
Following a long-standing family enmity, the appellants and two others were convicted of murdering a young man, Badan Pal, who was shot and attacked with weapons at a tube-well shed where he used to study at night. The trial court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (common intention) and sentenced them to life imprisonment, a conviction the Allahabad High Court upheld. Two of the convicts, Vijendra Singh and Mahendra Singh, appealed to the Supreme Court: Vijendra Singh additionally claiming he had been a juvenile (about 16 years old) on the date of the offence.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined the evidence on common intention and rejected Mahendra Singh's argument (based on the absence of a lathi-blow injury on the deceased) that he deserved acquittal, holding that common intention can be inferred from the circumstances: he had accompanied armed co-accused to the scene with a lathi, which was enough to sustain his conviction; his appeal was accordingly dismissed. For Vijendra Singh, the Court accepted an unchallenged report establishing he was a juvenile (about 16 years 3 months old) on the date of the offence, and applying the Juvenile Justice Act's provisions as interpreted in prior precedent, held that since he had already been in custody longer than the maximum period a juvenile could be held in a special home, he must be released from custody forthwith even while his conviction stood. The appeals were disposed of accordingly: one dismissed, the other allowing the appellant's release due to his juvenility.
Lesson Learnt
A person's precise age at the time of an offence can decisively change the consequences even where the underlying conviction is upheld: a genuine juvenile-status claim, once established by an unchallenged report, triggers release once the time already served exceeds what a juvenile could lawfully be detained for, regardless of the severity of the offence.