Convict Shall Be Entitled To Be Released In All Cases Where He Has Completed His Period Of Jail Term: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that in all cases where an accused or convict has completed his period of jail term, he/she shall be entitled to be released forthwith.

The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal in which the question that arose was whether an accused/convict who has completed his “life imprisonment for a fixed term” such as twenty years of actual sentence without remission, is entitled to be released from prison on completion of such a sentence.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “Consequently, we hold that in all cases where an accused/convict has completed his period of jail term, he shall be entitled to be released forthwith and not continued in imprisonment if not wanted in any other case. We say so in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

The Bench remarked that the Sentence Review Board cannot sit in Judgment over what has been judicially determined as the sentence by the High Court which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Mridul appeared for the Appellant while ASG Archana Pathak Dave and Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Delhi High Court had rejected the Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking release of the Appellant on furlough for a period of three weeks considering the apprehension expressed by the Complainant i.e., mother of the deceased victim and the Respondent. In 2002, an FIR was registered under Sections 364 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) based on a complaint. In 2008, the co-convicts were convicted under Sections 302, 364, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1 lakh each.

In 2011, the Appellant was also found guilty under Sections 302, 364, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the Sessions Court and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Being aggrieved, all the convicts preferred Appeals before the High Court, which dismissed the same. Since the year 2015, the Appellant was intermittently granted parole for short periods. He moved an Application seeking grant of first spell of furlough for a period of three weeks as per Rule 1223 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 before the Director General of Prisons but the same was rejected. Resultantly, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, but it was also dismissed. Hence, he was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… in this case, instead of granting death penalty, alternative penalty of life imprisonment has been awarded which shall be for a period of twenty years of actual imprisonment. That even in the absence of death penalty being imposed, life imprisonment of a fixed term of twenty years was imposed which is possible only for a High Court or this Court to do so. The period of twenty years is without remission inasmuch as the appellant is denied the right of remission of his sentence on completion of fourteen years as per Section 432 read with Section 433-A of the CrPC. Such a right has been denied by the High Court but that does not mean that on completion of twenty years of imprisonment the appellant has to still seek reduction of his sentence on the premise that he was awarded life imprisonment which is till the end of his natural life. If that was so, the High Court would have specified it in those terms.”

The Court added that the High Court has imposed life imprisonment which shall be twenty years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission and it was of the view that for a period of twenty years, the Appellant has to undergo actual imprisonment which would not take within its meaning any period granted for parole or furlough.

“In the instant case, the actual imprisonment of twenty years was admittedly completed by the appellant on 09.03.2025 which was without any remission. If that is so, it would imply that the appellant has completed his period of sentence. In fact, the award of the aforesaid sentence was also confirmed by this Court. On completion of twenty years of actual imprisonment on 09.03.2025, the appellant was entitled to be released”, it said.

The Court further observed that the release of the Appellant from jail does not depend upon further consideration as to whether he has to be released or not and as to whether remission has to be granted to him or not by the Sentence Review Board.

“There cannot be any further incarceration of the appellant herein from 09.03.2025 onwards. On the other hand, in the instant case, the appellant’s prayer for furlough was refused by the High Court and, thereafter, this Court granted furlough only on 25.06.2025 as he had completed his actual sentence by then, pending consideration of the amended prayer made by the appellant herein on completion of his sentence on 09.03.2025”, it also remarked.

The Court was of the view that the continuous incarceration of the Appellant from March 9, 2025 onwards was illegal and he ought to have been released from prison as he had completed the sentence imposed on him by the High Court as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

Furthermore, the Court noted that presently the Appellany is not in custody but on furlough for three months pursuant to the interim order, he need not surrender after expiry of the period of furlough as he has completed his jail sentence of twenty years in March, if not wanted in any other case.

“A copy of this order shall be circulated by the Registry of this Court to all the Home Secretaries of the States/Union Territories to ascertain whether any accused/convict has remained in jail beyond the period of sentence and if so, to issue directions for release of such accused/convicts, if not wanted in any other case”, it directed.

The Court also ordered that a copy shall also be sent by the Registry to the Member Secretary, National Legal Services Authority for onward transmission to all Member Secretaries of the States/Union Territories Legal Services Authorities for communication to all the Member Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authorities in the States for the purpose of implementation of the Judgment.

Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeal and issued necessary directions.

Cause Title- Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 969)

Click here to read/download the Judgment