Can a Convict Claim Juvenility Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes

The bench also referred to its earlier decision in Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010), where it held "in no uncertain terms" that a conjoint reading of Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7-A, 20, and 49 of the Act of 2000 read with Rules 12 and 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, means all persons below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence, even prior to April 1, 2001, would be treated as juveniles. This applies even if the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the date of commencement of the JJ Act, 2000, and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted.

Acting on a writ petition filed by Hansraj, a murder convict in the matter arising out of Hansraj Vs State of UP, the court ordered his immediate release from jail, noting he was 12 years 5 months old on the date of the incident in 1981. The bench observed, "Since there is no quarrel with the fact that the petitioner was a child at the time of commission of the offence and the petitioner having been behind bars for more than 3 years, his liberty has been curtailed not in accordance with procedure established by law. Breach of the right guaranteed by Article 21 is writ large and, hence, the benefit of release from detention ought to be extended to the petitioner."

As per the custody certificate issued on August 14, 2025, the petitioner had been in custody for 3 years 10 months 28 days. His date of birth was June 10, 1969. The trial court had held him and five others guilty of the murder of the victim on August 14, 1984. While the co-accused were sentenced to life in prison, the Sessions Court, having noted that the petitioner was aged about 16 years, held he was entitled to the benefit of the Childrens Act, 1960. Accordingly, instead of sending the petitioner to jail, he was directed to be kept in a children’s home in accordance with the provisions of the 1960 Act to give him a chance to reform himself.

On appeal, the Allahabad High Court on April 7, 2000, acquitted all appellants. However, on May 8, 2009, a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court reversed the order of acquittal and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. The petitioner subsequently absconded and was arrested only on May 19, 2022, and was still in custody. The petitioner had been behind bars for 1 month 3 days at the time of the order.

Court examined the issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended by Act 33 of 2006, which inserted Section 7-A with effect from August 22, 2006. The petitioner's counsel contended that the maximum period of detention for a juvenile is 3 years as per Section 15(1)(g), and detention beyond this period would constitute an illegal detention, being a clear breach of the petitioner’s right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, thus warranting immediate release.

Opposing the plea, the state counsel argued that the date of occurrence of the crime was November 2, 1981, and therefore, the provisions of the 1960 Act would be applicable, not the JJ Act, 2000. He further contended the petitioner was found guilty of a heinous offence and was not entitled to any mercy, submitting that the court may refuse to exercise discretion in the petitioner's favour due to his having absconded.

In the case, the bench noted the victim died from multiple injuries caused by a knife as well as lathis. In the absence of any specific role played by the petitioner, the Sessions Court recorded conviction against him by taking aid of Section 149 of the IPC, i.e., he was a member of an unlawful assembly which perpetrated an act in furtherance of a common object and would thus be liable thereunder.

"Be that as it may, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than the period permissible in law. Moreover, the purpose for which the Sessions Court directed the petitioner to be kept in a children’s home is no longer feasible now. We have also not been shown why provisions contained in Section 24 of the 1960 Act - prohibiting joint trial of a child with a person who is not a child - was observed in the breach," the bench said.

Court also pointed out that no provision in the 1960 Act had been brought to its notice that creates a legal impediment, thereby limiting its authority to grant relief to the petitioner. The bench noted that the developments in legislation in relation to juvenile justice introduced by the Parliament from time to time can "hardly be overlooked," pointing out that the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is the "new avatar" of Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000.

Allowing the writ petition, the court ordered the Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Varanasi, to act on the basis of a downloaded copy of this judgment and order as and when produced, without insisting for a certified copy thereof.