Uttarakhand High Court Rules Murder Convict Was Minor, Orders Immediate Release After 13 Years

The Uttarakhand High Court has ordered the release of a convict who spent 13 years in prison for murder, ruling he was a minor at the time of the crime. This decision invalidates his life sentence.

The Uttarakhand High Court has ordered the immediate release of a prisoner who has been incarcerated for 13 years in a murder case. This decision came after it was determined that the convict was a minor at the time of the crime, rendering his life imprisonment sentence invalid.

A division bench comprising Justices Ravindra Maithani and Ashish Naithani made this ruling. The convict had been sentenced by the sessions court for a murder and attempted robbery in Roorkee in 2003. His conviction was upheld by both the high court in 2013 and later by the Supreme Court.

Juvenile Justice Act Provisions

In 2021, the convict submitted an application from jail, asserting that he was a minor on June 24, 2003, when the incident occurred. To verify this claim, the court instructed the Registrar Judicial to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into his age at the time of the crime.

The Registrar Judicial's investigation involved examining school records, student registers, and witness statements. It was found that the convict's actual date of birth was May 22, 1988, making him 15 years and one month old during the crime.

Legal Implications and Court's Decision

The high court cited provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, which allow claims of being a juvenile to be raised at any stage, even after trial or sentence completion. This legal framework played a crucial role in reassessing the convict's case.

The court noted that since juveniles cannot be held in reformatories for more than three years or receive life sentences, and given that the convict had already served over 13 years, he was entitled to immediate release. The court upheld his conviction but recognised his juvenile status at the time of the crime.

The convict's involvement in the incident was similar to that of other accused individuals. However, due to his age at the time of the crime, his sentence required reconsideration under juvenile justice laws.

This case highlights how juvenile justice provisions can impact legal outcomes even after significant time has passed since sentencing. The decision underscores the importance of verifying age-related claims thoroughly to ensure fair treatment under the law.

With inputs from PTI