Makkella Nagaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No. 429 of 2022

MAKKELLA NAGAIAH ....PETITIONER VERSUS

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH .…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 co-accused Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2023.09.05 18:16:15 IST persons, inter alia, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Reason: 1 Hereinafter ‘Juvenile Justice Act, 2000’.

1 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 precedents,2

this 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

2 Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2009) 13 SCC 211.

2 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

3 imprisonment.3 Having accepted the report of the II 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.

..…..……………………………….J. [B. R. Gavai]

………….………………………….J. [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha]

…………….………………………….J. [Sanjay Kumar] New Delhi;

September 05, 2023

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.

4