Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana 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