25 Years in Jail for No Fault: SC Grants Freedom to Juvenile Convict

In a landmark judgement of Om Prakash vs Union of India, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the release of a man who had spent nearly 25 years in prison after being wrongly convicted as an adult for a murder he committed as a juvenile. The Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Arvind Kumar ruled in favour of the appellant, Om Prakash, after establishing that he was only around 14 years old at the time of the offence.

Key Observations by the Court in Om Prakash vs Union of India

The Court emphasised that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after a conviction is affirmed by the Supreme Court, provided it was not properly examined earlier. The Bench held:

“When such a plea is raised, it shall be recognised and cannot be brushed aside in a casual or whimsical manner. This is the heart and soul of the Juvenile Justice Act and must be given its fullest meaning.”

It further stated that mistakes by courts in ignoring pleas of juvenility cannot be allowed to perpetuate injustice.

“At every stage, injustice has been inflicted by the courts. The approach of the courts in earlier litigation cannot be sustained in the eye of law,” the judgement read.

The Om Prakash vs Union of India Case Timeline

• 1994: Om Prakash was accused of murdering his employer and family.
• 2001: He was arrested and wrongly categorised as an adult based on a bank document claiming he was 20 years old.
• Trial Court: He was sentenced to death.
• High Court and Supreme Court: Both upheld the sentence, dismissing his pleas of juvenility.
• 2012: The President commuted his sentence to life imprisonment with a stipulation that he remains in jail until age 60.
• 2019: A bone ossification test confirmed he was 14 years old at the time of the crime.
• 2025: The Supreme Court granted his release, acknowledging the grievous error.

Supreme Court’s Directions

The Court directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to assist Om Prakash in accessing government rehabilitation schemes and reintegrating into society.

Role of the Juvenile Justice Act

The judgement highlighted the rehabilitative and reformative focus of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court noted that juveniles in conflict with the law should be treated as victims needing care, not as delinquents to be punished.

“The Court is expected to play the role of parens patriae by treating a child through the lens of reformation, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society,” it stated.

Legal Representation

• For the Appellant: Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar and Advocate on Record Prateek Chadha, supported by Project 39A-NLU Delhi.
• For the Respondents: Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj and Advocate Vanshaja Shukla.