The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the release of a man, who was awarded the death penalty for killing five women and two children in Pune in 1994, after it found that he was a juvenile when the offence was committed.
A bench of Justices K M Joseph, Aniruddha Bose and Hrishikesh Roy said that the court is accepting the report of the Inquiring Judge, who had inquired into the claim of juvenility of convict Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary.
“We declare that the date of birth of the applicant as reflected in the certificate issued by the Rajkiya Adarsh Uccha Madhyamik Vidyalaya of district Bikaner dated January 30, 2019…as ‘12’, is to be accepted for determining his age at the time of commission of the offence of which he has been convicted,” it said.
The bench said that going by that certificate, his age at the time of commission of offence was 12 years and 6 months and “thus, he was a child/juvenile on the date of commission of offence for which he has been convicted, in terms of the provisions of the 2015 (Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. This shall be deemed to be the true age of Niranaram, who was tried and convicted as Narayan”.
It said that since he has already served more than three years of incarceration and under the law as it prevailed at the time of commission of offence as also under the 2015 Act, he cannot be subjected to capital punishment.
“In view of this finding, the order sentencing him to death passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, and subsequently confirmed by the High Court and by this Court would stand invalidated by operation of law. He shall be set free forthwith from the correctional home in which he remains imprisoned, as he has suffered imprisonment for more than 28 years, having regard to the provisions of Section 18 of the 2015 Act,” the top court said.
The bench said that the court agrees with the observations in its earlier verdicts that a casual or cavalier approach should not be taken in determining the age of the accused or convict on his plea of juvenility, but a decision against determination of juvenility ought not to be taken solely for the reason that offence involved is heinous or grave.
“The degree or dimension of the offence ought not to direct approach of the Court in its inquiry into juvenility of an accused (in this case a convict),” the bench said.
