By Pradyumna Satish 

The Appellant was charged with culpable homicide amounting to murder for an incident on 15.11.1994. During the trial, he claimed juvenility, citing his age as approximately 17 years at the time of the offence. The trial court dismissed his plea of juvenility by relying on circumstantial evidence, such as his bank account and cheque book, which indicated that he was an adult. The court sentenced him to death due to the gravity and severity of the offence. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the plea of juvenility. On appeal, the Supreme Court also concurred with the lower courts’ reasoning and ordered for the dismissal of the present appeal. 

Despite these rulings, the Appellant persisted in asserting his juvenility. He presented school certificates and a medical ossification test, both suggesting he was a minor at the time of the offence. However, review and curative petitions filed before the Supreme Court were also dismissed. A Mercy Petition filed before the President of India in light of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the amended 2007 Rules resulted in a Presidential Order commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment. However, the order imposed a condition that the Appellant would not be released until he attained 60 years of age. 

Subsequently, the Appellant obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, showing that minors above 10 years of age could open bank accounts without being issued cheque books, contradicting the basis of earlier judgments. In 2019, the Appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the Presidential Order and invoking Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. However, the High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that judicial review of an executive order under Article 72 is limited and affirming that the proceedings against the Appellant had attained finality. 

The Appellant, now before the Court, seeks redress, continuing to assert his juvenility and challenge the conditions imposed on his sentence. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the plea of juvenility was not adequately addressed at any stage, despite clear evidence supporting the Appellant’s claim. The Court held that the failure to apply the mandatory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Acts of 2000 and 2015 amounted to a miscarriage of justice. It further observed that the Appellant had endured over 25 years of imprisonment due to errors by the courts and had lost significant opportunities for reintegration into society. 

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the sentence exceeding the upper limit prescribed for juveniles under the relevant Act, and directed the Appellant’s immediate release. It also tasked the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to facilitate his rehabilitation, ensuring his right to livelihood, shelter, and sustenance under Article 21 of the Constitution. While maintaining the conviction, the Court emphasized that the decision did not interfere with the Presidential Order commuting the death sentence. 
 
A plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after an initial adjudication, if it has not been properly determined or finalized. Merely because a casual adjudication has taken place, it does not mean that a plea of juvenility cannot be raised subsequently. If a plea was not treated as an application under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, or if the mandated procedural requirements were not followed, the rejection of such a plea cannot be considered final. Courts remain competent to revisit and decide the issue, provided due procedure is followed. Only when a plea has been conclusively adjudicated based on proper determination, further litigation on the same issue would be made impermissible. 

Case Title: Om Prakash @Israel @Raju @Raju Das v. Union of India & Anr. 

Citation: 2025 INSC 43 

Click here to read/download the judgement.