Akansha Upadhyay
Published on – 28 November 2022 at 20:04 IST
In a 1999 case, the Delhi High Court set aside the life sentence of a murder convict because he pleaded juvenile pending his appeal. Bone tests revealed that he was between 10 and 20 years old on the day of the incident.
“Considering the fact that the upper age limit cannot be taken to the detriment of the appellant and as per the lower limit, the appellant was a minor at the time of alleged incident, he is entitled to the benefit of juvenility. The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/452 IPC as noted above.”
“Maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the said offences, which is not being challenged on merits before this Court, the order on sentence is set aside,” said the court.
The Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal In the judgment dated November 23 further observed that in any case the conviction “will have no disqualification at any stage against the appellant in terms of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act.”
In 2005 the Appellant challenged the judgment of the Trial Court dated 5th July, 2004 by which the accused was convicted punishable under Sections 302 and 452 IPC. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on July 9, 2005. In 2019, he pleaded juvenility before the High Court.
The bench had earlier remitted the matter to the trial court to determine the age of the appellant as on November 6, 1999 – the date of the incident. Since neither the date of birth from the school nor the certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation was available, a medical board was constituted by the Additional Sessions Judge in December 2019.
The Medical Board conducted physical, radiological and dental as well as orthopedic examination of the appellant. Though the appellant had also submitted his Aadhaar and PAN card, the same were not considered.
“The appellant also had submitted his Aadhar Card and PAN Card whereby his date of birth was mentioned as 1st January 1983. However, the said documents were not on the basis of any record from the school or municipal authority.”
“Hence, in terms of Section 94 of the J.J.Act, the age of the appellant will have to be ascertained as per the ossification test conducted and opined by the Medical Board to be between 30 to 40 years as on 18th December 2019, which makes the age of the appellant on the date of incident i.e. 6th November 1999 to be between 10 years to 20 years,” the bench said, while granting relief to the convict.