Ramesh Thakur (name changed) was 17 years 6 months old when he was jailed on murder charges in 2003, the Bombay high court confirmed recently. Though granted bail in 2009 after the HC directed the sessions court to conduct an inquiry and the latter found that he was a “juvenile in conflict with law”, he had already spent six years in jail.
Despite the police, prosecution and sessions judge knowing his age, he was sent to regular jail and not a correction home.
“The appellant has already been in custody for six years. In these circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the judgement and order dated March 25, 2008 convicting and sentencing him,” said a division bench of Justices V.K. Tahilramani and A.R. Joshi in a recent order in 2013.
Mr Thakur had been convicted by the additional sessions judge of the fast-track court in Sewree for criminal conspiracy and murder under Section 120-B read with Section 302, and other sections of the IPC.
The incident took place on May 10, 2003, also marking the period of his arrest and the commencement of his trial. His conviction came in 2008 after which he filed a criminal application stating that he was a juvenile.
On April 6, 2009, the HC passed a detailed order and directed the principal sessions judge of the sessions court to assign an inquiry as to whether the appellant was a juvenile in conflict with law as provided under Section 2(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act on the date of the offence.
The additional sessions judge conducted an inquiry and submitted a report stating that the appellant was a juvenile as his date of birth is November 10, 1985.
The same wasn’t challenged by the prosecution.
“Who will take responsibility? He spent six years in jail when he could have gone to correction home. I want to ask why didn’t the police or the prosecutor or the judge see his birth date? I haven’t even seen him even though he was my client. He was released on bail, but jail time has ruined the rest of his life and he is untraceable,” advocate Uday Warunjikar told this newspaper.