DEHRADUN: The Uttarakhand High Court has ordered the immediate release of a man who spent 13 years in prison for murder, only for the court to discover he was a juvenile at the time of the crime.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Ashish Nathani, delivered the landmark ruling under the Juvenile Justice Act, declaring that a clerical error effectively invalidated the life sentence imposed upon the convict.
The case dates back to a brutal murder and attempted robbery in Roorkee in 2003.
The accused was initially convicted by the Sessions Court. This conviction was upheld by a High Court bench in 2013, and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court.
The legal journey took an unexpected turn in 2021 when the convict sent a petition from jail, asserting that he was a minor on the date of the offense, June 24, 2003.
To verify this serious claim, the court ordered a detailed investigation by the Registrar Judicial. The Registrar’s exhaustive probe, which scrutinized school records, scholar registers, and witness testimonies, confirmed the convict’s assertion.
The investigation established the man’s actual date of birth as May 22, 1988, meaning he was approximately 15 years and one month old when the crime occurred.
Accepting the report, the court acknowledged the convict’s juvenile status at the time of the offense.
Citing provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, the court clarified that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after the sentence has been served.
While the court upheld the conviction—noting the accused played an equal role alongside co-accused individuals—it could not uphold the sentence itself.
"The law is clear: a juvenile cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment, nor can they be confined in an adult correctional facility for more than three years," noted a source close to the proceedings.
Given that the individual had already served over 13 years behind bars—far exceeding the maximum permissible term for a juvenile in such a case—the High Court mandated his immediate discharge.
"This case highlights a critical failure somewhere along the line. A man was penalized under adult law for an act committed as a child, and it took nearly two decades for the records to be properly scrutinized," commented a senior legal analyst familiar with the matter.
"The High Court’s intervention, though late, upholds the spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act, which prioritizes rehabilitation over retribution for minors."