The Supreme Court of India made an important decision, saying that a person can claim they were a minor at the time of a crime at any point in their legal process if there is strong proof to show it. This ruling helped a man who was originally sentenced to death for triple murder but was later found to have been under 18 years old when the crime happened on November 15, 1994.

The man had already spent 25 years in prison, including 11 years on death row, before this discovery. This judgement is a big step forward for India’s juvenile justice system. It ensures that children who get involved in legal trouble are treated according to the rules and protections of the Juvenile Justice Act, which focuses on care and rehabilitation rather than harsh punishment.

The case and the SC’s verdict

The man, who was just 14 years old when the crime happened, had been saying from the start of his trial that he was a minor, but he couldn’t show enough proof to support his claim until recently. The turning point came when a legal team from Project 39A, a program at the National Law School in Delhi, found his school records in Jalpaiguri. These records showed his correct date of birth and confirmed that he was under 18 when the crime was committed.

While upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court set aside the death sentence, ordering his release. The bench comprising Justices M. M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar stated, “The appeal deserves to be allowed in view of the conclusion arrived at; we are inclined to set aside the sentence imposed in excess of the upper limit prescribed under the relevant Act while maintaining the conviction rendered.” The court acknowledged the convict’s “lost opportunity to reintegrate into society” and noted the irreparable loss of time he endured for no fault of his own.

The role of project 39A and evidence discovery

Project 39A, a program that helps prisoners on death row, was very important in this case. The team, led by Professor Anup Surendranath, worked hard to investigate the convict’s background. They found his school records, which became the main evidence to show that he was a minor when the crime happened.

Speaking to Times Now, Professor Surendranath said, “Though the case is from Uttarakhand (where the convict was working as domestic help), he is from Jalpaiguri. We tracked down his school records in Jalpaiguri. The date of birth in his school records showed he was a juvenile on the date of the offence. School records have the highest value under the Juvenile Justice Act for the determination of age for children in conflict with the law.”

The court criticised the earlier judgements for disregarding the mandatory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, stating, “The facts as narrated above speak for themselves. At every stage, injustice has been inflicted by the courts, either by ignoring the documents or by casting a furtive glance.”

Impact of the judgement

This decision highlights the importance of being careful and considerate in legal cases involving minors. It also makes it clear that if new or strong evidence shows that a person was under 18 when the crime happened, their jail term or death sentence can be cancelled, even if the case is old. 

The bench noted, “We have been informed that his conduct in the prison is normal, with no adverse report. He lost an opportunity to reintegrate into society. The time that he has lost, for no fault of his, can never be restored.”

The judgement also pointed out how society evolves over the years. It acknowledged that after spending 25 years in prison, the convict might find it difficult to adapt to the many changes that have occurred during that time.

The legal journey

At first, the Uttarakhand High Court rejected the convict’s claim that he was a minor when the crime happened, saying that checking his age again would be like reopening the whole case. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. It said that applying the Juvenile Justice Act wasn’t about redoing the President's earlier decision but was a necessary step to fix a mistake.

This important decision by the Supreme Court has set a strong example for protecting the rights of minors. It emphasised that finding out a person’s age is very important in legal cases. The case also shows how crucial good evidence and detailed investigations are for ensuring fair justice.

After spending more than 20 years in jail for a crime he committed as a child, the convict is now going to be released. This marks the start of a new chapter in his life after many years of legal battles and mistakes in the system.