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.
India
-Krishna Kripa
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.
image
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.
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
