MAKKELLA NAGAIAHversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                 [2023] 12 S.C.R. 250 : 2023 INSC 800



                           CASE DETAILS

                       MAKKELLA NAGAIAH
                                    v.
                THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                  (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 429 of 2022)
                         SEPTEMBER 05, 2023
         [B. R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASHIMHA
                   AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
                             HEADNOTES
     Issue for consideration: Claim of petitioner for juvenility after
conviction u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC.

     Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 –
Petitioner and other co-accused convicted u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life – High Court upheld the
conviction and sentence – SLP also dismissed – Petitioner claimed
juvenility – The Sessions Judge was directed to conduct an enquiry
and to submit the report:

      Held: The Additional Sessions Judge submitted the report after
recording necessary evidence by summoning the concerned officials for
the production of school records – The report of the Additional Sessions
Judge confirmed the petitioner’s juvenility at the time of commission of
the offence – The report has categorically come to the conclusion that
the date of birth of petitioner is 02.05.1989 – 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 – In view of s.16 r/w. s.15(1)(g) of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the maximum period for which the petitioner
could have been in custody is three years – The petitioner has already
undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment – Accepting the report,
the petitioner can no longer be incarcerated – Petitioner directed to be
released forthwith. [Paras 5, 6, 7 and 8]
                                   250
                   MAKKELLA NAGAIAH v.                                     251
               THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH


       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES

     CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
429 of 2022
     Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.
     Appearances:
     Rishi Malhotra, Adv. for the Petitioner.
    Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Sriharsha Peechara, Duvvuri Subrahmanya
Bhanu, Ms. Pallavi, Ms. Kriti Sinha, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advs. for the
Respondent.

        JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
                                       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 persons, inter alia,
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian 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


1   Hereinafter ‘Juvenile Justice Act, 2000’.
252             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 12 S.C.R.


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 precedents2, 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 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


2     Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2009) 13 SCC 211.
                   MAKKELLA NAGAIAH v.                                                253
               THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

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 imprisonment3. 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.


Headnotes prepared by:                                               Writ petition allowed.
Ankit Gyan




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.