The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has partly allowed a criminal appeal in which Siraj Ahmad and Abdul Wahid were the surviving appellants, setting aside their sentences after finding that both were juveniles on the date of the incident.
A Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava held that their convictions would remain intact, while the Juvenile Justice Board would determine the appropriate punishment under the law applicable to the case.
The case arose from a violent incident on September 28, 1980, in Sultanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, in which several people died and others sustained injuries. The Sessions Court had convicted the accused in 1981 and imposed life imprisonment and other prison terms for offences under the Indian Penal Code.
During the appeal, Siraj Ahmad and Abdul Wahid claimed that they were below 18 years of age when the incident occurred. The Allahabad High Court directed the Juvenile Justice Board to inquire into the appellants’ claims of juvenility. The Board subsequently submitted its reports on February 2, 2017, and November 27, 2023, concerning Siraj Ahmad and Abdul Wahid, respectively.
Siraj Ahmad produced educational certificates relating to his studies from Class 1 to Class 5 at Primary School Mawaiya and from Class 6 to Class 8 at Hanfi Inter College, Rasoolabad. He also submitted his Aadhaar card, a Class 5 pass certificate from 1975 and school records. Although the complainant's son challenged the certificates before the Board, the prosecution produced no witness to support the objections. The Board found the documents genuine.
In Abdul Wahid's case, the Board examined a school register, a Class 5 transfer certificate, the High School cross-list and records relating to his Class 10 examination roll number. These documents were also found genuine.
The High Court determined that Siraj Ahmad was 17 years, 10 months and three days old, while Abdul Wahid was 17 years, 11 months and three days old on the date of the incident.
The Bench found no reason to interfere with their convictions, noting that the prosecution evidence was supported by medical records and eyewitness testimony.
The Court observed:
"Thus where a juvenile is found guilty of the offence, alleged to have been committed, he simply cannot go unpunished, but what punishment should be awarded, must be left to the Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the Act."
The Bench clarified that the incident occurred when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, was in force and held that the punishment awarded could not exceed the limits prescribed under that legislation.
The Court partly allowed the appeal and set aside the sentences imposed on both appellants, referring the matter to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board to determine the appropriate punishment.
The Bench directed Siraj Ahmad and Abdul Wahid to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board on October 28, 2026, with a certified copy of the judgment. It further directed the Board to pass an order within six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of the order.
Case Title: Ali Hasan v. State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 1981
