Court affirms guilt of appellants in multiple murders and injuries but directs fresh sentencing by Juvenile Justice Board for accused found to be juveniles at time of crime
In a landmark judgment delivered on October 14, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, Lucknow) in the criminal appeal case of Ali Hasan and Others vs. State of U.P. upheld the conviction of two appellants, Siraj Ahmad and Abdul Wahid, in a gruesome multiple murder and assault case but set aside their sentences after determining that they were juveniles on the date of the offence. The case has been remitted to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate sentencing in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Background of the Case:
The incident occurred on September 28, 1980, in Village Pipri, Sultanpur district, where eight accused persons formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and attacked several victims, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The prosecution successfully established the presence and active participation of the accused in the attack through credible eyewitness testimonies and corroborative medical evidence. The trial court convicted the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons), 148, 147, and 323, sentencing them to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment terms.
Juvenility Plea Raised at Appellate Stage:
During the pendency of the appeal, appellants Siraj Ahmad and Abdul Wahid filed applications claiming juvenility under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, asserting they were under 18 years at the time of the occurrence. The Court directed the Juvenile Justice Board to conduct an inquiry into their age, relying on documentary evidence such as educational certificates, school records, and Aadhaar cards produced by the appellants.
Age Determination and Findings:
The Juvenile Justice Board's inquiry confirmed that both appellants were juveniles at the time of the crime, being 17 years and 10 months, and 17 years and 11 months old respectively on the date of the incident. The Court held that while their conviction for the offences committed can be maintained based on the evidence, the sentences passed by the trial court could not stand given their juvenile status.
Legal Principles Applied:
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Mumtaz v. State of U.P. (2016), which clarified that where an accused is above 16 but below 18 years of age on the date of the offence, criminal proceedings can continue in the regular court, conviction can be recorded, but sentencing must be deferred and referred to the Juvenile Justice Board. The Board is empowered to decide the appropriate punishment under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, which was applicable at the time of the offence.
The Court emphasized the procedural safeguards under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, allowing juvenility claims to be raised at any stage, even after conviction, and laid down the proper method for age determination prioritizing matriculation or school certificates, birth certificates, and medical tests only in their absence.
Outcome:
Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court partly allowed the appeal, affirming the conviction of the appellants Siraj Ahmad and Abdul Wahid but setting aside their sentences. The matter was remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board to determine the appropriate punishment within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment. The appellants were directed to appear before the Board on October 28, 2026.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to balancing justice for heinous crimes with the protective mandates of juvenile justice laws, ensuring that juveniles are not subjected to adult sentencing regimes while holding them accountable for their actions.
Bottom Line:
Juvenility plea can be raised at appellate stage even after conviction - Where accused were below 18 years on date of occurrence, conviction can be maintained but sentence must be set aside and matter remitted to Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate order in accordance with Juvenile Justice law.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 307, 324, 148, 147, 323, 149; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 Sections 7A, 20; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Section 94; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 Rule 12(3)
Ali Hasan v. State of U.P., (All)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2997820
