The Supreme Court has set side the death sentence of a rape-murder convict, after it was established that he was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence.

A top court bench of justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol said: “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 Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) or any other child care facility or institution. The appellant is in judicial custody. He shall be released forthwith.”

The apex court affirmed the trial court order convicting him for the offence of rape and murder, but set aside the death sentence awarded to the accused, convicted in a December 2017 rape and murder case in Madhya Pradesh.

The bench noted that it is 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 the JJB.

“It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, 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,” added the bench.

The top court judgment came on a man’s plea challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated November 15, 2018. The Indore bench of the high court had upheld the death sentence awarded by the lower court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentence.

The accused, during the pendency of these appeals, moved an application claiming juvenility and consequently the benefits available under the provisions of the 2015 Act.

The bench said the appellant is held to be less than 16 years, and therefore, the maximum punishment that could be awarded is up to three years.

“The appellant has already undergone more than five years. His incarceration beyond three years would be illegal, and therefore, he would be liable to be released forthwith on this count also,” it added.

The bench considered a report from the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar, Dhar district, Madhya Pradesh, dated October 27, 2022 along with all the material evidence both documentary and oral adduced before it on the basis of which the report has been submitted.

The top court accepted the trial court report and held that the appellant was aged 15 years, four months and 20 days on the date of the incident.

It added, “It would also be pertinent to notice that the institution is not a private institution, but 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 bench noted, “The intention of the legislature is 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 story has been published via a syndicated feed with a modified headline.)