SC sets aside death sentence of rape-murder convict after finding he was juvenile at time of offence

New Delhi [India], March 4 (ANI): The Supreme Court has set aside the death sentence of a rape-murder convict after it found out that the man was juvenile when the incident took place.

A bench of justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol set aside the death sentence of the accused, convicted in a December 2017 rape and murder case in Madhya Pradesh. However, the court upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court order which affirmed the trial court order convicting him in the rape and murder case.
“The conviction of the appellant is upheld; however, the sentence is set aside. Further, as the appellant at present would be more than 20 years old, there would be no requirement of sending him to the JJB or any other childcare facility or institution. Appellant is in judicial custody. He shall be released forthwith,” the top court said.

The Apex court was hearing the man plea challenging High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore’s Bench order dated November 15, 2018. High Court of Madhya Pradesh affirmed the death sentence awarded by the Trial Court and at the same time dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The Trial Court vide judgment dated May 17 2018 convicted the appellant.

During the pendency of these appeals, the appellant moved an application claiming juvenility and consequently the benefits available under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.
Pursuant to the said order, a report has been received from the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar, District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh dated October 2022 along with all the material evidence both documentary and oral adduced before it on the basis of which the report has been submitted.

As per the report, the appellant was 15 years 4 months and 20 days of age on the date of incident.
The court noted from the date of the arrest in December, 2017, the appellant has already undergone incarceration of more than 5 years whereas under section 18 of the 2015 Act, a juvenile below 16 years, even if convicted for a heinous offence, the maximum sentence that can be awarded is 3 years stay in a special home.
“It would also be pertinent to notice that the institution is not a private institution but is a government primary school and this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve or even doubt the testimony of government servants both working and retired,” the court said.

“In addition to the mark sheets by the institution, there is also the date of birth certificate issued by the institution. Further, the original Scholar register and other documents were also produced before the Trial Court in the inquiry. This Court, therefore, has no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court regarding the date of birth of the appellant. We, therefore, accept the report of the Trial Court and hold that the appellant was aged 15 years, 4 months and 20 days on the date of the incident,” the court said.
The intention of the legislature was to give benefit to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of the offence only with respect to its sentence part, the court noted.

Having considered the statutory provisions laid down in section 9 of the 2015 Act and also section 7A of the 2000 Act which is identical to section 9 of the 2015 Act, we are of the view that merits of the conviction could be tested and the conviction which was recorded cannot be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry was not conducted by JJB, the court said.

“It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the 2015 Act would be attracted and any sentence in excess of what is permissible under the 2015 Act will have to be accordingly amended as per the provisions of the 2015 Act. Otherwise, the accused who has committed a heinous offence and who did not claim juvenility before the Trial Court would be allowed to go scot-free,” the court said.

“This is also not the object and intention provided in the 2015 Act. The object under the 2015 Act dealing with the rights and liberties of the juvenile is only to ensure that if he or she could be brought into the main stream by awarding lesser sentence and also directing for other facilities for welfare of the juvenile in conflict with law during his stay in any of the institutions defined under the 2015 Act,” the court said.