Supreme Court Orders Release Of Life Convict Booked For Killing Sister’s Lover; Considers 22-Yr-Long Incarceration Period
The appellant, a life convict, approached the Supreme Court seeking pre-mature release after his long period of incarceration.
CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that a life convict, who was booked for killing his sister’s lover and suffered incarceration for almost 22 years, made a valid case for remission. The Court noted the fact that the crime was one to uphold the family's prestige, which could mean the perceived tarnishing of the family’s name.
The appellant, a life convict, approached the Apex Court seeking pre-mature release after his long period of incarceration.
The Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “Hence, obviously the crime is one to uphold the family prestige, which in the given circumstances could mean the perceived tarnishing of the family’s name, though not condonable, the appellant has a valid case for remission after almost 22 years of incarceration.”
Advocate Ajit Wagh represented the Appellant, while AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant along with second accused attacked the deceased and his friend. The attack was a premeditated one, on the motive as projected by the prosecution, that the deceased was in love with the appellant’s sister, whose life was being spoiled by the love affair. The appellant approached the Government for remission of his life sentence upon which the Government procured a report from the Additional District Court, Greater Mumbai, which initially convicted the appellant and passed the sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 and 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to be undergone concurrently. Based on the opinion of the Additional Sessions Judge that the act committed by the appellant falls within the purview of Category 4(d) of the 2010 guidelines framed for pre-mature release, the Government through its Home Department directed his release after 24 years. The appellant’s contention was that he ought to have been released after 22 years.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the custody certificate attached to the Writ Petition indicated that the appellant had been in custody for 20 years 7 months and 8 days. The appellant was in custody for almost 22 years; short of three months.
Finding that the crime was related to upholding the family prestige, the Bench noted, “We find the appellant’s contention to be valid that the category under which the remission ought to have been considered was 3(b) under Government Resolution No. RLP No.1006/CR621/PRS-3 dated 15.03.2010.”
Considering that three months more in jail would make no difference and it would neither add solace to the family of the victim nor extra remorse to the accused, the Bench directed the release of the appellant forthwith. The Bench also took note of the fact that the appellant was just past 18 years on the date of the crime.
Cause Title: Anilkumar @ Lapetu Ramshakal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1198)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates Ajit Wagh, Rupesh Jaiswal, AOR Kailas Bajirao Autade
Respondent: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Shrirang B. Varma, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, Chitransha Singh Sikarwar