Nitish Katara Murder- Apex Court Refuses To Accept Complainant's Objection To Retired HC Judge Who Adjudicated Co-Accused's Case Appearing For Accused
Calling the preliminary objection raised by ASG "unfair," the Supreme Court observed that it was improper to argue that Sukhdev Yadav had not specifically pleaded his right to release after completing 20 years of actual imprisonment, after arguing for half an hour.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in proceedings arising from the Nitish Katara murder case, let retired Delhi High Court Judge turned Senior Advocate Siddharth Mridul decide whether to continue appearing as counsel for convict Sukhdev Yadav, after the complainant raised an objection that he had heard as a judge, a plea by co-accused for parole in the same case.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, "It is for the learned senior counsel for the petitioner to consider the said objection and take appropriate decision."
During the hearing, an objection was raised by Senior Advocate Aparjita Singh, appearing for the complainant, regarding the appearance of Siddharth Mridul for Sukhdev. It was contended that Mridul had previously dismissed the plea for grant of parole for a co-accused, Vikas Yadav.
Sukhdev's plea challenged a November 2024 Delhi High Court order dismissing his petition seeking three weeks' furlough.
On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court awarded a 25-year jail term without remission to Vikas Yadav and his cousin Vishal for the kidnapping and killing of Nitish Katara from a marriage party on the night of February 16-17, 2002, over his alleged affair with Vikas's sister Bharti Yadav.
Thereafter, Sukhdev Yadav alias Pehalwan was also convicted and given a 20-year jail term for the same offence.
Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave appeared for the State, while Senior Advocate Aparjita Singh appeared for the Complainant.
Permitting Yadav to amend his petition to specifically plead entitlement to release after completing 20 years of actual imprisonment, excluding remission, the Court said,“…Since this strong objection has been raised, we permit the petitioner to amend the Petition for raising the contention noted in the earlier orders, though this amendment is strictly not required in view of our earlier orders."
ASG Archana Pathak Dave raised an objection stating that Yadav had not raised a plea in this Petition that he was entitled to be released after undergoing actual sentence of 20 years.
Noting the objections raised, the Court criticized the State for raising preliminary objections after arguments had substantially progressed, observing, "Raising such a preliminary objection after arguing the case for half an hour especially in the light of the two orders which we have quoted above, is unfair to the other litigants whose cases were listed before this Court today."
In the petition, Yadav has pleaded that he had served the entire sentence of 20 years as directed by the High Court and had prayed for furlough. "...the Hon'ble High court failed to appreciate that the petitioner is entitled to avail furlough as he satisfies the eligibility conditions as laid down in Rule 1223 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018", the petition states.
The Petition further states, "...the Hon'ble High Court all throughout has relied upon the judgement convicting the petitioner completely ignoring the fact that the offence in question dates back to the year 2002 and thereafter the petitioner has reformed himself which is reflected from his nominal roll that shows the jail conduct of the petitioneto be satisfactory, the condition necessary for being released on furlough."
The State, opposing the plea of furlough in its counter affidavit, stated, "...a sentence of "life imprisonment' means imprisonment for the entirety of the convict's natural Iife. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to be released automatically upon completion of 20 years of imprisonment. Upon completion of 20 years of imprisonment, the rider of 20 years of imprisonment without remission will end and the Petitioner's case will be eligible for consideration for remission before the Sentence Review Board."
The State further contended, “It is settled law that sentence of life imprisonment must be treated as imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person's natural life."
It is the stand of the State that the apprehension raised by the complainant and witnesses cannot be brushed aside, particularly keeping in view the nature of the crime, and the circumstances under which the witnesses turned hostile, save for a few.
Earlier, the Court had issued a contempt notice to the Delhi Government for non-compliance with its directions regarding the decision on remission applications, noting a consistent pattern of delay and defiance.
The dispute presently centres around the interpretation of Paragraph 881 of the High Court's judgment which ordered that Yadav's "life imprisonment shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission."
The Court will hear the matter on May 7, 2025.
Cause Title: Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan V. State Of (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(S). 17915/2024)
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Siddharth Mridul; AOR Milind Kumar; Advocates Hemendra Jailia, Madhurima Mridul, Minnatullah, Sanjay Baranwal, Hemant Gulati, Aditya Gulati
Respondents: Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave; Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Vrinda Bhandari; Advocates Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Sweksha, Priyanka Terdal, Harshita Choubey, Jagdish Chandra, Pragya Barsaiyan, Anandita Rana, Vanshita Gupta
