IMPORTANT POINT
Juvenility – All persons who were below age of eighteen years on date of commission of offence even prior to 1st April, 2001 would be treated as juveniles even if claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained age of eighteen years on or before date of commencement of JJ Act, 2000 and were undergoing sentences upon being convicted.

JUDGMENT

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. This Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution has been invoked by the petitioner, who is a murder convict. As per the custody certificate issued on 14th August, 2025, the petitioner is in custody for a period of 3 years 10 months 28 days. Relief that is claimed in this writ petition reads as follows:

“A. issue a Writ of Mandamus of any similar writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent – State to immediate release the petitioner from Central Jail, Agra against the conviction order dated 16.08.1984 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in S.T. No. 08 of 1983, in view of the order dated 08.05.2009 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2002 (Annexure P-3) wherein in paragraph – 13, the petitioner was held to a child/juvenile, aged about 16 years”.

2. Incidents having a bearing on our decision are summarised hereunder:

a. The date of birth of the petitioner is 10th June, 1969.

b. It was alleged in a First Information Report [FIR] registered under Sections 302/149, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC], that the petitioner along with 5 others had assaulted the father [victim] of the first informant with knife and lathis, on 2nd November, 1981. The victim succumbed to his injuries on the following day.

c. In course of investigation of the FIR, the petitioner came to be arrested on 6th November, 1981. He was, however, released on bail on 8th December, 1981. As an undertrial, the petitioner was behind bars for 1 month 3 days.

d. Petitioner and the co-accused were tried by the Special Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1983. A finding was returned in the judgment of conviction dated 14th August, 1984, that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, were guilty of murder of the victim.

e. The order of sentence was passed on 16th August, 1984. The co- accused were sentenced to life in prison. The Sessions Court having noted that the petitioner was aged about 16 years, held that he was entitled to the benefit of the Childrens Act, 1960 [the 1960 Act]. Accordingly, instead of sending the petitioner to jail, he was directed to be kept in a children’s home in accordance with the provisions of the 1960 Act to give him a chance to reform himself.

f. All the convicts, including the petitioner, challenged the conviction and sentence before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in an appeal [Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 1984] under Section 374(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Vide a judgment and order dated 7th April, 2000, the High Court acquitted the appellants and allowed the appeal.

g. State of Uttar Pradesh, aggrieved by the acquittal, appealed to this Court [Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2002]. By a judgment and order dated 8th May, 2009, a coordinate bench of this Court reversed the order of acquittal and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. The concluding paragraph of the order also restored the order of the Sessions Court qua the petitioner.

h. The petitioner absconded. He could be arrested only on 19th May, 2022, and is still in custody, as noted above.

3. The question that we are tasked to decide is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [the JJ Act, 2000], as amended by Act 33 of 2006 whereby Section 7-A was inserted with effect from 22nd August, 2006. Section 7-A reads as follows:

“7-A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court. – (1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his a