Sentence Already Undergone Would Subserve Ends Of Justice: Supreme Court Directs Release Of Murder Convict Who Failed To Surrender On Time

The appellant approached the Apex Court with an appeal challenging the order of the Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the revision petition filed by him.

The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih noted, “The appellant has already been granted remission for the main offence under Section 302 IPC. However, following 6 the date of remission, the appellant has undergone an additional incarceration of approximately 10 months.”

Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra represented the Appellant while AAG Vishal Mahajan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant was implicated for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The said conviction and sentence were affirmed by the High Court. While the appellant was undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment, he was released on parole for six weeks. However, since the appellant did not surrender within the specified period, he came to be arrested on June 30, 2010.

However, the appellant did not surrender and an FIR came to be registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 8/9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (Prisoners Act, 1988). The appellant came to be convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. The appeal as well as the Revision filed by the appellant, came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Arguments

It was the case of the appellant that insofar as the main offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the appellant had already been granted remission, however, the appellant could not avail the benefit of the same on account of the sentence awarded to him under the Prisoners Act, 1988.

It was the case of the respondent-State that the now the Prisoners Act, 1988 has been amended with effect from October 1, 2012, and it prescribes for a minimum sentence of two years and hence, the appeal is without merits.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that while Section 9 of the Prisoners Act, 1988 provides for a maximum sentence of three years, it does not prescribe a minimum sentence for the offence punishable under it.

It was observed by the Bench that the amendment as brough to the Court’s notice by the State would not be applicable as the amendment came into effect on October 1, 2012, whereas the offence was committed on June 17, 2010, and the order of sentence was issued in November 2010.

It was further noticed that it was not the case of the respondent-State that the appellant was habitually not reporting to prison within the prescribed time. The offence for which the appellant was convicted under the Prisoners Act, 1988 was the first such instance.

Considering the fact that the appellant had already been granted remission for the main offence under Section 302 IPC and following the date of remission, the appellant had undergone an additional incarceration of approximately 10 months, the Bench said, “...we therefore find that the sentence already undergone would subserve the ends of justice for the offence punishable under the Prisoners Act, 1988.”

Allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment and directed the appellant to be released.

Cause Title: Karan Singh v. The State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 475)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, AOR Prem Malhotra, Advocates Ansuiya, Shivaansh Maini

Respondent: AAG Vishal Mahajan, AOR Samar Vijay Singh, Advocates Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Keshav Mittal

Click here to read/download Order