Facts Of The Case:
The case originates from an incident dated August 30, 1988, where eight accused persons were tried for offenses including murder (Sections 302/149 IPC) and voluntarily causing hurt (Sections 323/149 IPC). The Trial Court convicted all eight and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life. Their appeal to the High Court was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence. During the pendency of the subsequent appeal before the Supreme Court, appellants Umesh Yadav and Ganesh Yadav (sons of Jitan Yadav) raised a claim of juvenility for the first time, asserting they were below 18 years on the date of the incident. The Supreme Court directed an enquiry. For Ganesh Yadav, lacking documentary proof, an ossification test indicated an age of 19 years. Applying a settled two-year margin of error to the medical opinion, the Court held he was 17 at the time of the crime and declared him a juvenile, leading to his release as he had already served over 8 years. For Umesh Yadav, cited as the elder brother, the Court inferred his age was higher and denied juvenility. Ultimately, considering the 35-year lapse and the advanced ages of the remaining convicts, the Supreme Court commuted their life sentences to a fixed term of 14 years of actual imprisonment.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case began with the conviction of eight accused by the Trial Court under Sections 302/149 and 323/149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Their appeal to the High Court (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 374 of 1993) was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court’s judgment. Subsequently, the convicts appealed to the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal No. 1072 of 2018). During these apex court proceedings, two appellants raised a belated claim of juvenility. The Supreme Court, via an order dated 25.11.2019, remanded the matter to the Trial Court for a factual enquiry into their age. Based on the ensuing ossification test report and after hearing arguments on sentencing, the Supreme Court delivered the final judgment, partly allowing the appeal by granting juvenile relief to one convict and reducing the sentence for others.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court :NIT Professors Win Notional Promotions But Lose Back Pay & Experience Claims
Court Observation:
In its observations, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled legal principle from Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir that a radiological (ossification) test for age determination carries a margin of error of two years on either side. Applying this margin, the Court held that appellant Ganesh Yadav, whose medical age was assessed as 19 years, was effectively 17 years old on the date of the offence and was thus entitled to the benefit of juvenility. For appellant Umesh Yadav, the Court observed that as the admitted elder brother of Ganesh Yadav, his age would necessarily be higher, disqualifying him from juvenile status. Regarding sentencing for the other aged convicts, the Court took judicial note of the extraordinary lapse of over 35 years since the incident and the appellants’ current advanced ages, observing that these factors warranted a compassionate exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to commute their life imprisonment to a fixed term.
Download The Judgement Here