Can't Claim Benefit Citing Old Age: Supreme Court Refuses To Reduce Life Sentence In Murder Case Where Appeal Was Pending For 40 Years

The Supreme Court has held that persons convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) cannot claim leniency on sentence merely on account of old age or the lapse of time since the incident, as the offence carries a mandatory statutory minimum sentence of imprisonment for life.

The Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by two surviving convicts in a 1984 murder case, noting that while the trial was concluded within two years, the matter remained stalled at the appellate stage for almost forty years.

It, however, left it open to the State of Uttar Pradesh to consider any prayer for remission that the petitioners may submit, in accordance with law.

The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya observed, "Suffice it to say that the incident took place in the year 1984 and the trial was concluded expeditiously within a period of two years. It was at the appellate stage that the matter got stalled and remained pending for almost forty years. In any event, an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, carries a mandatory statutory minimum sentence of imprisonment for life. Hence, the petitioners, citing their old age, cannot claim any benefit on the aspect of sentence merely because significant time has elapsed since the date of incident." 

Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav appeared for the Petitioners

Brief Facts of the Case

The accused persons were arraigned in an FIR in the year 1984 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the Accused. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence(s) passed by the trial Court, five out of the seven convicted accused persons, including the petitioners herein, preferred Criminal Appeal before the High Court in 1986.

During the pendency of the appeal, five out of the seven originally convicted accused passed away, thereby leaving the petitioners, Madan and Bharat, as the only two surviving accused.

The High Court affirmed the conviction of the Accused/Petitioners vide order dated August 6, 2026. Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the present petition was filed.

Contentions of the Petitioners

The Petitioners contended that no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case, even though the incident took place within the public gaze. It was added that the case of the prosecution was based primarily on the testimony of the complainant, both of whom are sons of the deceased and, therefore, interested witnesses. In the absence of corroboration of their testimony by evidence of any independent witness or incriminating recovery, the conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained.

It was further added that no weapons were recovered during investigation and hence, the ocular testimony of the closely related eyewitnesses stands completely uncorroborated.

The Petitioners prayed that the accused persons were in their late seventies and were suffering from various medical ailments and hence, the Court might consider taking a lenient view on the question of sentence.

Observations & Findings of the Court

The Court perused the depositions of the witnesses, annexed with the special leave petition, and found them to be witnesses of sterling worth.

"The law is well-settled that where the direct testimony of an eye- witness is found to be reliable, the same does not require corroboration in form of any recovery, etc.", the Court observed.

The Court observed that there was ample evidence on record to show that they formed an unlawful assembly, armed themselves with multiple weapons and, upon reaching the place of incident, launched an indiscriminate assault on the deceased as well as the complainant.

It was held that the trial Court was fully justified in invoking Section 149 of the IPC to hold them vicariously liable for the offences in question.

"It would, however, be open to the respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh to consider any prayer for remission submitted by the petitioners, if applicable, in accordance with law at the appropriate stage", the Court added.

Finding that there was no infirmity in the judgment passed by the courts below, the special leave petition was dismissed as being sans merit.

Cause Title: Madan & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 20544/2026]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate Anjale Kumari, Advocate Taiyyab Khan Salmani, Advocate P Murugesan, Advocate Pooja Shilpkar, Advocate Aditya Yadav, Advocate Sanjeev Malhotra

Click here to read/download the Order