1994 triple murder case: SC orders release of convict after 25 years

The apex court observed that the convict was a juvenile aged 14 years at the time of incident.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered release of a man convicted of killing a retired colonel, his son and sister by beheading them in Uttarakhand's Dehradun district in 1994, finding that he was a juvenile aged 14 years at the time of incident.

After 25 years of imprisonment and second round of litigation, a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar said, "at every stage, injustice has been inflicted by the courts, either by ignoring the documents or by casting a furtive glance."

Observing that a mistake committed by the court cannot stand in the way of one’s rightful benefit, the bench maintained his conviction, but set aside his sentence for being excess of upper limit prescribed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The bench said, "Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth. It is truth which transcends every other action. The primary duty of a court is to make a single-minded endeavour to unearth the truth hidden beneath the facts. Thus, the court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and substantive laws as its tools."

The bench noted the appellant despite being illiterate, raised this plea one way or another, right from the trial court up to the conclusion of the curative petition before this court.

"The approach of the courts in the earlier round of litigation cannot be sustained in the eye of law," the bench said.

Earlier, the appellant was sentenced to death penalty and his review and curative petition were also dismissed by the apex court. However, by a Presidential Order issued on May 8, 2012, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, with a caveat that he would not be released until the attainment of 60 years of age. 

In 2019, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging the Presidential Order and seeking another relief on the basis of Section 9(2) of the 2015 Juvenile Justice Act. The High Court dismissed his plea, holding that the power of judicial review over an executive order passed in exercise of Article 72 of the Constitution is limited, and the proceedings against the appellant had attained finality.

Before the apex court, his counsel senior advocate S Muralidhar contended a plea of juvenility, raised at every stage has not been adjudicated, which meted out grave injustice to him. He has been unfairly kept under incarceration including the earlier solitary confinement, which is obviously untenable and illegal. Relying upon school certificate from Jalpaiguri, the counsel sought his immediate release with adequate compensation for the loss of formative years suffered by him in the prison.

The state counsel led by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj and Vanshaja Shukla said this is an attempt to reopen and re-hear an issue which has attained finality. 

The court, however, held the procedural mandate contemplated under the law was also not followed by the trial court and the High Court, as plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage and even after conclusion of the proceedings.

"This is a case where the appellant has been suffering due to the error committed by the courts. He lost an opportunity to reintegrate into the society. The time which he has lost, for no fault of his, can never be restored," the bench said.

The court clarified its order is not a review of the Presidential Order, but a case of giving the benefit of the provisions of the 2015 Act to a deserving person.

"In view of the said constitutional mandate, the court is expected to play the role of parens patriae by treating a child not as a delinquent, but as a victim, viewed through the lens of reformation, rehabilitation and reintegration into the society," the bench said.

The court directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to play a proactive role in identifying any welfare scheme of the State or Central Government, facilitating his rehabilitation and smooth reintegration into the society upon his release, with particular emphasis on his right to livelihood, shelter and sustenance guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.