45 Years After Murder Conviction, Allahabad High Court Finds 2 Life Convicts Were 'Juveniles'; Remits Sentencing To JJB

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday set aside the life sentences awarded to 2 men convicted in a 1980 murder case after finding that they were juveniles on the date of the offence, nearly 45 years after their conviction by the trial court.

A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava upheld their convictions but remitted the matter to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to determine the appropriate punishment under the applicable law.

The Court observed that the incident occurred when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, was in force and held that "only the punishments not greater than those postulated by Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 ought to be awarded to them".

"Thus where a juvenile is found guilty of the offence, alleged to have been committed, he simply cannot go unpunished, but what punishment should be awarded, must be left to the Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the Act", the Court said relying on Supreme Court's Judgment in Mumtaz vs. State of UP 2016.

The bench partly allowed the appeal filed by Siraj Ahmad and Abdul Wahid, directing them to appear before the JJB on October 28, 2026. The Board was directed to pass an order within 6 weeks.

Case in brief

The High Court was hearing an appeal against a December 1981 judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, in a murder case.

It was the prosecution's case that, owing to previous enmity, the accused attacked the complainant's side on September 28, 1980, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to others.

The appeal ultimately survived only as to Ahmad and Wahid, as the appeals against the other accused had abated earlier.

During the pendency of the appeal, the two appellants claimed that they were juveniles on the date of the incident. The High Court directed the Juvenile Justice Board to conduct an inquiry into their ages.

The Board submitted its reports concerning Ahmad on February 2, 2017, and Wahid on November 27, 2023. After examining the reports and supporting documents, the Court accepted their dates of birth as November 25, 1962, and October 25, 1962, respectively.

Accordingly, the Court found that Ahmad was 17 years, 10 months and 3 days old, while Wahid was 17 years, 11 months and 3 days old on the date of the incident. It therefore held that both appellants were juveniles at the time of the offence.

In Ahmad's case, the documents included educational certificates relating to his studies from Class 1 to Class 5 at Primary School Mawaiya and from Class 6 to Class 8 at Hanfi Inter College, Rasoolabad. He also produced his Aadhaar card, a Class 5 pass certificate from 1975 and school records.

Although the complainant's son objected to the educational certificates before the Board, the prosecution produced no witness to support those objections. The Board, therefore, found the documents to be genuine.

In Wahid's case, the Board considered a school register, a Class 5 transfer certificate, the High School cross-list and evidence relating to his Class 10 roll number in the Uttar Pradesh Board examination. The Court also found these documents to be genuine.

Before the HC, the Counsel for the appellants did not challenge their convictions but sought setting aside of their sentences and prayed that the matter be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. The Additional Government Advocate did not dispute the prayer.

Examining the prosecution evidence, including the testimonies of injured eyewitnesses and eyewitness, the Court found no ground to interfere with the trial court's findings of guilt. Hence, the convictions were upheld.

However, the Court considered Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which permits a claim of juvenility to be raised even after final disposal of a case. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Jitendra Singh v. State of UP 2013.

Since the offence was committed when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, was in force, the Court held that the punishment could not exceed that contemplated under the 1986 Act.

It consequently set aside the sentences imposed on the two appellants and remitted the matter to the JJB to determine the appropriate punishment in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions in Jitendra Singh.