Bench
- Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi
- Justice A.K. Mathur
Facts
- Conviction and Sentencing:
-
- Zakarius Lakra was convicted and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, for an offense committed on November 15, 1994.
- The High Court confirmed the death sentence, and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence upon appeal.
- Writ Petition Filed:
-
-
- The parents of the accused filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the death sentence on the grounds that Zakarius was a juvenile at the time of the offense.
- They presented school certificates indicating that his date of birth was January 4, 1980, suggesting he was 14 years old when the crime occurred. These certificates were not considered during the initial trial or appeals.
-
Issues
- Whether the death sentence imposed on Zakarius Lakra should be quashed on the grounds that he was a juvenile at the time of the offense.
Arguments
- Petitioners’ Arguments:
- Claimed Zakarius was a juvenile at the time of the offense, based on school certificates indicating a birth date of January 4, 1980.
- Cited previous Supreme Court decisions where the juvenile status of offenders was considered even at advanced stages of legal proceedings, leading to modifications in sentencing.
- Respondent’s Arguments:
- Highlighted inconsistencies in Zakarius’s age declarations, noting he had opened a bank account in 1994, which typically requires the individual to be a major.
- Emphasized the finality of the Supreme Court’s previous decisions upholding the death sentence.
Ratio Decidendi (Legal Reasoning)
- Juvenile Status Consideration:
- The Court acknowledged the importance of determining the accused’s age at the time of the offense, as it directly impacts the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, which prohibits capital punishment for juveniles.
- Procedural Appropriateness:
- The Court noted that a writ petition under Article 32 was not the appropriate remedy for challenging the sentence after the dismissal of a review petition.
- Referred to the precedent set in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, which established the curative petition as the proper legal recourse in such situations.
Observations
- The trial court, while hearing the accused on the question of sentence, noted that Zakarius claimed to be 17 years old at the time of the offense. However, evidence showed he had opened a bank account in 1994, suggesting he was a major.
- The Supreme Court, in its earlier judgment, had considered this aspect and found no fault in the trial court and High Court’s approach regarding Zakarius’s age.
- The Court acknowledged that the school certificates indicating Zakarius’s juvenile status were not brought to its notice during the appeal hearing.
Decision
- The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it was not maintainable under Article 32 for the relief sought.
- However, the Court permitted the petitioners to convert the writ petition into a curative petition, following the procedure outlined in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, to address the claim of Zakarius’s juvenile status at the time of the offense.
Important Terms
- Article 32 of the Constitution: Provides individuals the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Curative Petition: A legal mechanism allowing the Supreme Court to re-examine its final judgments to prevent miscarriage of justice, even after the dismissal of a review petition.
-
Juvenile Justice Act: Legislation that provides for the care, protection, and rehabilitation of juveniles in conflict with the law, prohibiting capital punishment for offenses committed as juveniles.
