Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

"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