2025 Supreme(SC) 45

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4229 of 2024 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2214 of 2022]
Decided On : 08-01-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Benefit of juvenility – Even a juvenile who has attained majority during course of enquiry should be treated as a juvenile – Plea of juvenility can be raised before any Court, there is no question of finality in this regard.
(2) Administration of Justice – Justice is nothing but manifestation of truth – Primary duty of Court is to make a single-minded endeavour to unearth truth hidden beneath facts – Court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and substantive laws as its tools – When procedural law stands in way of truth, Court must find a way to circumvent it.
(3) No one shall be prejudiced by an act of Court – Mistake committed by Court cannot stand in way of one’s rightful benefit.
(4) Judicial review of Presidential Order – Power of pardon, as conferred under Articles 72 and 161 of Constitution, is sovereign – It is a power of compassion and empathy – It is an executive power travelling on a different channel which cannot be termed as a power of appeal or review – Challenge to exercise of power under Articles 72 and 161 of Constitution would involve limited judicial review on grounds

Headnote:

(A) Administration of Justice – Justice is nothing but manifestation of truth – It is truth which transcends every other action – Primary duty of Court is to make a single-minded endeavour to unearth truth hidden beneath facts – Court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and substantive laws as its tools – When procedural law stands in way of truth, Court must find a way to circumvent it – Similarly, when substantive law, as it appears, does not facilitate emergence of truth, it is paramount duty of Court to interpret law in light of its teleos – Such exercise is warranted in a higher degree, particularly while considering a social welfare legislation – In its journey, Court must discern truth, primarily from material available on record in form of pleadings and arguments duly supported by documents – Entire judicial system is meant for discovery of truth, it being soul of a decision – For doing so, Presiding Officer is expected to play an active role, rather than a passive one. (Paras 4, 5 and 6)

(B) Juvenile Justice – A child is a product of the present, in need of being moulded, to thrive in future – Deviant behaviour of a child in conflict with law should be a concern of society as a whole – Child is not responsible for an act of crime, but is rather victimized by it – Such a child is nothing but an inheritor of crime, a legacy which it does not wish to imbibe – Behaviour of a child can be attributed, possibly to two counts, environment that child grows in and genetics – Remedial measures may be employed for benefit of child – Since child does not choose environment in which it grows, deviant behaviour which is a result of exposure to a given environment is evidence of rampant inequality – A child who lives in such a discriminatory environment, requires equitable treatment on touchstone of Article 14 of Constitution of India – Juvenile Court is a species of a parent – A delinquent who appears before Court, is to be protected and re-educated, rather than be judged and punished – Juvenile Court assumes role of an institution rendering psychological services – It must forget that it is acting as a Court and must don robes of a correction home for a deviant child. (Paras 8, 9, 10 and 11)

(C) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 5, 6 and 9 – Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Inter-country Adoption, 1993 – Benefit of juvenility – Even a juvenile who has attained majority during course of enquiry should be treated as a juvenile – Plea of juvenility can be raised before any Court, there is no question of finality in this regard until and unless application filed, invoking this provision, is determined in accordance with 2015 Act and relevant rules – When such a plea is raised, it shall be recognised and cannot be brushed aside in a casual or whimsical manner – Due determination must be made by judiciously considering material available on record – Court is expected to travel an extra mile to satisfy its conscience as to whether case on hand would attract provisions of 2015 Act and for said purpose, process enumerated thereunder will have to be necessarily followed – Merely because a casual adjudication has taken place, it does not mean that a plea of juvenility cannot be raised subsequently – So long as right of a party subsists, one can never say that finality has been attained – In a case where a plea has been raised but not adjudicated upon, decision rendered thereunder would not amount to attaining finality – Even after dismissal of a Special Leave Petition/Statutory Criminal Appeal followed by incidental proceedings before this Court, where plea of juvenility was not consciously considered, there would be no bar on Constitutional Courts to consciously take a deeper look – Doing so is not an exercise of powers conferred under Articles 32, 136 or 226 of Constitution, but an act in fulfilment of a mandated duty enjoined upon Courts, to give effect to laudable objective of a social welfare legislation. (Paras 19, 20, 22 and 23)

(D) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94 – Determination of age – Where a matriculation certificate is very much available, date of birth certificate from school or a birth certificate given by a local authority shall never be looked into – It should not be misunderstood that even in those cases where due inquiry was undertaken under erstwhile enactments and relevant rules, one can seek a fresh inquiry under Rule 12 of 2007 Rules – Admission is a rule of evidence – It is a relevant fact – It becomes relevant qua a fact in issue – When an admission is clear, unambiguous, continuous and unequivocal, it becomes best form of evidence and transforms itself into a fact in issue – When a party makes an admission, either by way of an oral statement or by acknowledging a document authored by them, Court must proceed on that basis – Resultant relief, which is axiomatic, cannot be denied on anvil of procedural law – Any contra view would result in grave injustice – On an issue where there is no dispute, denying a rightful relief would be an affront to fair play and justice – Court cannot construe a statement as an admission and proceed on that basis – There is a subtle difference between an unequivocal admission as against a statement which could be construed to be so – It must be seen contextually – While former can be the basis for a relief, latter is one meant for adjudication vis-à-vis facts of the case. (Paras 25 and 27)

(E) Administration of Justice – No one shall be prejudiced by an act of Court – Mistake committed by Court cannot stand in way of one’s rightful benefit – It is not the party which commits mistake, but rather Court itself – Such a mistake cannot act as a barrier for the party to get its due relief – However, mistake must be so apparent that it does not brook any adjudication on foundational facts. (Para 28)

(F) Constitution of India – Articles 72 and 161 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 9(2) – Judicial review of Presidential Order – Power of pardon, as conferred under Articles 72 and 161 of Constitution, is sovereign – It is a power of compassion and empathy – It is meant to remove or reduce all pains, penalties and punishment suffered by a convict – Exercise of such sovereign power by highest constitutional authority, either of State or Centre, is a final grace given under Constitution for convict to reintegrate into society – Power under Articles 72 and 161 of Constitution is not appellate or revisional in nature – It is an executive power travelling on a different channel which cannot be termed as a power of appeal or review – Challenge to exercise of power under Articles 72 and 161 of Constitution would involve limited judicial review on grounds such as inadequate application of mind, amongst others – Courts will have to exercise adequate caution and circumspection while dealing with an executive order passed in exercise of power conferred under Article 72 or 161 of Constitution – When a challenge is made to an executive order, with independent prayer for exercising power under Section 9(2) of 2015 Act, they being distinct and independent, refusal of judicial review of former will not obliterate mandatory duty pertaining to latter. (Paras 29, 30, 31 and 32)

Facts of the case:

It is a case where grave injustice has been perpetrated, on account of consistent failure on part of judicial machinery to recognise and act upon constitutional mandate vis-à-vis plea of juvenility.

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment stands set aside. Sentence imposed against Appellant in excess of upper limit prescribed under relevant Act, shall stand set aside, while making it clear that conviction shall continue. Appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Result : Appeal allowed.