High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

"Petitioner Can No Longer Be Incarcerated": Supreme Court Directs Immediate Release of Juvenile Convicted for Life

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India directed the immediate release of Makkella Nagaiah, who had been convicted for life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court's decision came after it verified Nagaiah's claim of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

Makkella Nagaiah had been convicted for an incident dated December 21, 2005, and had undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment. His appeals against the conviction were dismissed by both the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Supreme Court. However, Nagaiah filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking verification of his claim of juvenility.

The Bench, comprising Justices B. R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar, observed, "If the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.05.1989, he was 16 years 7 months old as on the date of the crime, i.e., 21.12.2005. Accordingly, the petitioner was a juvenile in conflict with the law on the date of commission of the offence."

The Court directed an inquiry into the claim, and the Additional Sessions Judge confirmed Nagaiah's juvenility based on a detailed examination of documents and oral evidence. The Court stated, "We have no hesitation in accepting the same."

The Court concluded, "In view of the above, we allow the Writ Petition and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs."

This decision underscores the importance of the Juvenile Justice Act, which allows the question of juvenility to be raised at any stage of judicial proceedings. The case has set a precedent for similar cases where the claim of juvenility has not been considered earlier.

Legal experts suggest that this judgment could open doors for many who are serving sentences without their juvenility being considered. The Court's decision emphasizes the need for a thorough examination of such claims to ensure that justice is served.

 Date of Decision: September 05, 2023

MAKKELLA NAGAIAH  vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH                 

         

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/05-Sep-2023_Makeela_Vs_State.pdf"]

Latest Legal News