Makkella Nagaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh
ORDER
1. This is a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner seeks verifi cation of his claim of juvenility and consequential
orders as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000 1. 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 confi rming the petitioner’s juven ility at the
time of commission of the off ence, 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 (FT C),
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’.
MAKKELLA NAGAIAH v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
the aforesaid conviction. The petitioner also fi led a Special Leave Petition
against the concurrent fi ndings of the Sessions Court and the High Court,
and this Court by its order dated 12.07.2022 dismissed the SLP, according
fi nality to the conviction and the sentence.
3. Two months after the dismissal of the SLP, the petitioner fi led 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 b e raised
before any Court and at any stage, as prescribed under Section 7A(1) of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and confi rmed by judicial precedents2, this Court
issued notice in the Writ Petition. The State fi led an affi davit through the
Inspector of Police, PS Sathupally, Khammam District, Telangana, stating
that the petitioner studied at the M.P.P. School, Putrela Main, V illage 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 ne cessary
evidence by summoning the concerned offi cials 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.
253
petitioner was a juvenile in confl ict with the law on the date of commission
of the off ence.
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 fi rst 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.