A 43-year-old man, who has been in jail for the past 13 years in a murder case, has now been ordered to be set free. The reason? He was a juvenile at the time of the offence committed 25 years ago.
As per Section 16 of the new Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (JJ Act) no juvenile in conflict with the law should be sentenced to death or given life term and in the wake of Supreme Court decisions the prisoner should be released from jail, ordered a Division Bench of the Madras the High Court, comprising Justices K.N. Basha and P. Devadass, while allowing the prisoner’s habeas corpus petition.
The prisoner was in Central Prison, Vellore.
The Judges said as per the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Hari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, the detenu in the present case could claim that he was a juvenile at the time he committed the offence, and seek benefits under the Act.
In the Hari Ram case, the Supreme Court held that if the juvenile in conflict with law was below 18 years when the offence was committed, and subsequently crossed 18 years — it may be before April 1, 2001, on which date the new Act came into force, or even on that day — juvenility could still be claimed.
On June 9, 1987, the body of the wife of the detenu’s brother, Ramesh, was found on the ground floor of their residence at Sowcarpet here.
In September 1989, II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and death sentence on different counts. He ordered merging of the imprisonment with the death sentence.
In February 1990, the High Court acquitted him of all charges.
Allowing a State appeal, the Supreme Court, in December 1997, set aside the High Court judgment and restored the conviction by the trial court under sections 302 read with 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) and 376 (punishment for rape). It modified the death sentence to life imprisonment, maintained the 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and directed that the sentences run concurrently.
Petitioner’s counsel S. Doraisamy contended that on the date of the offence, he was 17 years and 2 months old. He was a juvenile in conflict with law. As such, he could not be sentenced to life. At the most, he could be detained in a special home for three years. He was now aged 43 and could not be kept in a special home. Under the circumstances, he may be released.
Writing the order for the Bench, Justice Devadass said that as per Section 16 of the new JJ Act, the detenu could not be sentenced to life. Under Section 15, he could be detained in a special home for three years. After the Supreme Court judgment, he was re-committed to prison. Now he was 43 years and had been imprisoned for 13 years. These aspects had not been not disputed by the prosecution. As per Section 15, at this distant point of time, stage and age, it would be impracticable to send him to a special home.
