[2023] 12 S.C.R. 250 : 2023 INSC 800
MAKKELLA NAGAIAH
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 429 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASHIMHA AND
SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
Issue for consideration: Claim of petitioner for juvenility after
conviction u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
– Petitioner and other co-accused convicted u/s. 302 r/w.
s.34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life –
High Court upheld the conviction and sentence – SLP also
dismissed – Petitioner claimed juvenility – The Sessions Judge
was directed to conduct an enquiry and to submit the report:
Held: The Additional Sessions Judge submitted the report after
recording necessary evidence by summoning the concerned officials
for the production of school records – The report of the Additional
Sessions Judge confirmed the petitioner’s juvenility at the time of
commission of the offence – The report has categorically come
to the conclusion that the date of birth of petitioner is 02.05.1989
– 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
– In view of s.16 r/w. s.15(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000,
the maximum period for which the petitioner could have been in
custody is three years – The petitioner has already undergone
more than 12 years of imprisonment – Accepting the report, the
petitioner can no longer be incarcerated – Petitioner directed to
be released forthwith. [Paras 5, 6, 7 and 8]
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 429
of 2022
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.
Rishi Malhotra, Adv. for the Petitioner.
* Author
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 251
MAKKELLA NAGAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Sriharsha Peechara, Duvvuri Subrahmanya
Bhanu, Ms. Pallavi, Ms. Kriti Sinha, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advs.
for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. This is a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner seeks verification of his claim of juvenility and consequential
orders as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 20001. As such a plea can be raised at
any stage, we called for a report after due enquiry. Having perused
the report of the Additional Sessions Judge confirming the petitioner’s
juvenility at the time of commission of the offence, we have allowed
the Writ Petition and directed the release of the petitioner, who has
undergone much more than the maximum statutory punishment under
the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, i.e., three years of incarceration.
2. For an incident dated 21.12.2005, the petitioner was arrayed as an
accused along with others in Crime No. 228/05, P.S. Sathupally,
(A.P.). By its judgment dated 15.12.2009, the III Additional Sessions
Judge (FTC), Khammam, convicted the petitioner and other coaccused persons, inter alia, under Section 302 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced them to undergo
imprisonment for life. The petitioner appealed against the conviction
and the sentence to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which by its
judgment dated 10.04.2014, dismissed the appeal and upheld the
aforesaid conviction. The petitioner also filed a Special Leave Petition
against the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and the High
Court, and this Court by its order dated 12.07.2022 dismissed the
SLP, according finality to the conviction and the sentence.
3. Two months after the dismissal of the SLP, the petitioner filed the
present Writ Petition praying that a Writ of Mandamus be issued
to the State to verify his claim of juvenility and to pass necessary
consequential orders.
4. As it is well settled that the question of juvenility can be raised before
any Court and at any stage, as prescribed under Section 7A(1) of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and confirmed by judicial precedents2, this
1 Hereinafter ‘Juvenile Justice Act, 2000’.
2 Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2009) 13 SCC 211.
252 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
Court issued notice in the Writ Petition. The State filed an affidavit
through the Inspector of Police, PS Sathupally, Khammam District,
Telangana, stating that the petitioner studied at the M.P.P. School,
Putrela Main, Village of Vissannapet Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra
Pradesh, from First to Third Standard from 1994 to 1997 and his
date of birth is 02.05.1989. Since the juvenility was based on the
petitioner’s school documents, this Court considered it appropriate to
direct the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Khammam,
Andhra Pradesh, to conduct an enquiry with regard to the plea of
juvenility raised by the petitioner. The Sessions Judge was directed
to conduct an enquiry and to submit the report after recording
necessary evidence by summoning the concerned officials for the
production of school records.
5. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has forwarded the report of the
II Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, on the issue of juvenility of
the petitioner. In the report dated 13.05.2023, the FAC II Additional
Sessions Judge, Khammam, has categorically come to the conclusion
that the date of birth of Makkella Nagaiah is 02.05.1989. The report
is based on a detailed examination of the documents, Exhibits C1
to C7, coupled with the oral evidence of witnesses CW-1 and CW-2.
We have no hesitation in accepting the same.
6. 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.
7. In view of Section 16 read with Section 15(1)(g) of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2000, the maximum period for which the petitioner
could have been in custody is three years. However, as the plea
of juvenility was raised for the first time in the present writ petition
before us, the process of criminal law, which commenced in 2005, led
to the petitioner being convicted and sentence for life imprisonment
concurrently by the Trial Court, the High Court as well as the Supreme
Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has undergone more than
12 years of imprisonment3. Having accepted the report of the II
3 Although the Order of the Supreme Court dated 12.07.2022 notes that the petitioner has served 16
years of imprisonment, as per Letter No RC3/1009/2022 dated 13.12.2022, and Letter No. RC3/1009/2022,
dated 21.01.2023, addressed by the Director General of Prisons to the Government, the Petitioner has only
served 12 years 03 months and 10 days of sentence in present case Crime No. 228/05.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 253
MAKKELLA NAGAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, the petitioner can no longer
be incarcerated.
8. 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.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case : Writ petition allowed.
