Age came to the rescue of a rape and murder accused sentenced to life after the Supreme Court, based on medical opinion, held him a juvenile and allowed him to walk free out of a Rajasthan jail where he was incarcerated for past 14 years.
The apex court on one hand found the rape and murder of a seven-year old to be brutal but was equally alive to the law providing juveniles the benefit of being punished only for a maximum term of three years, that too in an observation home.
“The fact that the appellant has been in jail for nearly 14 years is the only cold comfort for us to let out of jail one who has been found guilty of rape and murder of an innocent young child,” said a bench of Justices TS Thakur and R Banumathi. The incident was of April 11, 1998 in a village under police station Rani in Rajasthan. The victim was attending a jaagran on the night of the incident. Soon after she went to sleep along with other children in the tent where the jaagran took place, the accused took her away, raped her and butchered her head with a heavy stone.
The trial court and High Court went by the brutality of the crime and upheld the twin sentences of life term for murder charge and 10 years in jail for rape charge. The Supreme Court convicted the accused under the two charges but when it came to pronouncing sentence, was confronted with an application by the accused claiming to be a juvenile.
He had no documentary evidence of his age. To make matters worse, he was deaf and dumb and was never admitted in school. As sixteen years had elapsed after the incident, the Court directed the Government Medical College, Jodhpur to form a Medical Board and conduct a radiological examination which estimated his age analysing each portion of his body.
The result of the Board left the judges “uncomfortable” as the age of the accused was estimated to be between 30 and 36 years as on date, meaning that he possibly could be 14 or even 20 years at the time of the incident. The bench took the mean age and found it to be 17 years, thus giving him the benefit of doubt.
The bench observed that even if the maximum age of 20 is taken, the determined age can vary plus minus two. “No matter the offence committed by him is heinous but for the protection available to him under the (Juvenile Justice) Act, the appellant may have deserved the severest punishment.”