1. Murder conviction — Claim of juvenility — Detention exceeding statutory limits for juveniles — Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1795
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Hansraj – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 340 of 2025
Decided On : 09-10-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Mansi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rakshit Rathi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Kumar Garg, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Yashveer Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Pundir, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Mansi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rakshit Rathi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Kumar Garg, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Yashveer Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Pundir, Adv.
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.
Headnote:
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Sections 7-A and 15(1)(g) – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 32 – Release from illegal detention – Petitioner is a murder convict – In absence of any specific role played by petitioner, Sessions Court recorded conviction against petitioner by taking aid of Section 149 of IPC – Petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than period permissible in law – Purpose for which Sessions Court directed petitioner to be kept in a children’s home is no longer feasible now – 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 – Petitioner was 12 years 5 months old on the date of incident – Petitioner having been behind bars for more than 3 years, his liberty has been curtailed not in accordance with procedure established by law – Breach of right guaranteed by Article 21 is writ large and benefit of release from detention ought to be extended to petitioner – Petitioner shall be immediately released, if not wanted in any other case. (Paras 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Question to decide is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended by Act 33 of 2006 whereby Section 7-A was inserted with effect from 22nd August, 2006.
Findings of Court:
Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Varanasi, shall act on the basis of a downloaded copy of this judgment and order as and when produced, without insisting for a certified copy thereof.
Result : Writ Petition allowed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims release based on maximum juvenile detention limits under JJ Act, 2000; Respondent argues applicability of 1960 Act and nature of heinous offence. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Undisputed juvenility at time of offence — Detention exceeding permissible legal limits — Purpose of reformative detention in children's home no longer feasible. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 13 )
4. A claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage; if proven, the person is entitled to the benefits of the JJ Act, 2000. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Writ petition allowed — Direction for immediate release of the petitioner from detention. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. When can a claim of juvenility be raised under the JJ Act, 2000?
Under Section 7-A, a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case. The court is obligated to conduct an inquiry and grant appropriate relief if the person is found to have been a juvenile on the date of the offence. (Para 3 , 12 )
7. Does the JJ Act, 2000 apply to persons who were juveniles before the Act's commencement?
Yes, all persons who were below eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence, even prior to 1st April 2001, are treated as juveniles, even if the claim is raised after they have attained eighteen years or while undergoing sentences. (Para 11 )
8. What is the effect of a finding of juvenility on a previously passed sentence?
If a court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for appropriate orders, and any sentence previously passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect. (Para 3 )
9. How does the maximum detention period for juveniles relate to Article 21 of the Constitution?
Detention of a juvenile beyond the maximum period permissible under law constitutes a breach of the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 4 , 13 )
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
