While pronouncing its magnanimous verdict on sentencing jurisprudence, it would be extremely vital to note that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan vs State of NCT of Delhi & Others in Criminal Appeal No. 3271 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 17915 of 2024) that was pronounced recently on July 29, 2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that a convict sentenced to “life Imprisonment for a fixed term” of a specific number of years without remission is entitled to be released immediately upon completing that term. It must be definitely mentioned here that the Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr Justice KV Viswanathan clarified that such a convict is not required to make an application for remission of their sentence to the Sentence Review Board, as the judicially determined sentence has been fully served. It is certainly in the fitness of things that the Apex Court declared the continued incarceration of the appellant named Sukhdev Yadav who is a convict in the Nitish Katara murder case, beyond his 20-year fixed term as “illegal”.
In addition, while striking the right chord, the top court also directed most commendably that a copy of its judgment be circulated to all States and Union Territories to identify and release any convicts who have remained in jail beyond their sentence period. It must be most strictly implemented to ensure that no convict suffers inspite of this most landmark judgment delivering relief to those convicts who have convicted fixed 20-year fixed-term life sentence! No denying or disputing it!
At the very outset, this progressive, pragmatic, powerful, persuasive and pertinent judgment authored by Hon’ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of herself and Hon’ble Mr Justice KV Viswanathan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth precisely in para 2 that, “The salient question that arises in this appeal is, whether, an accused/convict who has completed his “life imprisonment for a fixed term” such as twenty years of actual sentence without remission, as in the instant case, is entitled to be released from prison on completion of such a sentence. In other words, on completion of the fixed term of sentence as aforesaid, should the accused/convict seek remission of his sentence of “life imprisonment” by making an application to the competent authority for seeking “reduction of his sentence”.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench then envisages in para 3 which tersely states that, “By the impugned order dated 25.11.2024, the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (Crl.) No.1682 of 2023 rejected the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 respondent No.3 herein.
3.1 Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25.11.2024, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3.2 The relevant facts of the case are that on 17.02.2002, FIR No.192/2002 was registered at P.S. Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) on the basis of a complaint filed by Smt. Nilam Katara i.e. complainant and mother of the deceased. On 28.05.2008, after completion of investigation and trial, his co-convicts – Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav – were convicted for commission of offences under Sections 302, 364, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC in SC No.78/2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge (01), New Delhi, (“Sessions Court”). Thereafter, they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment as well as fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each under Section 302 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.50,000/- each for their conviction under Section 364/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of six months, and rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 201/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. All sentences were to run concurrently.
3.3 On 06.07.2011, the appellant herein was found guilty of commission of offences under Sections 302, 364, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC in SC No.76/2008 by the Sessions Court. Subsequently, on 12.07.2011, the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years; rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for commission of the offence under Section 364 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for six months; rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for his conviction under Section 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for six months. All sentences were to run concurrently.
3.4 Aggrieved by their conviction, the co-convicts and the appellant herein preferred criminal appeals before the High Court of Delhi. By judgment dated 02.04.2014, the Criminal Appeal No.145/2012 preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi and his conviction was upheld. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, the State had also preferred Criminal Appeal No.1322/2011 against the appellant along with Criminal Appeal No.958/2008 against the co-convicts seeking enhancement of sentence of life imprisonment to imposition of death penalty. The complainant had also preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.369/2008 against the order of the Sessions Court, seeking enhancement of sentence for all convicts including the appellant herein. By judgment dated 06.02.2015, the High Court disposed of all appeals and the revision petition by modifying the sentence imposed upon the appellant by judgment and order dated 12.07.2021 and directed that he shall undergo the sentence.
For sake of brevity, I am not elaborating on details of punishment. The key points are:
“(I) Life imprisonment for Sukhdev Yadav which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission, and fine of Rs.10,000/-. It was also directed that upon default in payment of fine, he shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(II) It is directed that the sentences for conviction of the offences under Section 302/34 and Section 364/34 IPC shall run concurrently. The sentence under Section 201/34 IPC shall run consecutively to the other sentences for the discussion and reasons in paras 741 to 745 above.
(III) The amount of the fines shall be deposited with the trial court within a period of six months from today.
(V) Amount of fines deposited by Sukhdev Yadav and other fines deposited by Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav shall be forwarded to the Delhi Legal Services Authority to be utilized under the Victims Compensation Scheme.
(VI) In case an application for parole or remission is moved by the defendants before the appropriate government, notice thereof shall be given to Nilam Katara as well as Ajay Katara by the appropriate government and they shall also be heard with regard thereto before passing of orders thereon.”
3.5 Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant herein preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.1528-1530/2015 before this Court which, along with appeals preferred by co-convicts, was disposed of by a common judgment dated 03.10.2016, with a singular modification in the sentence, i.e. the sentence under Section 201/34 IPC shall run concurrently.
3.6 Since the year 2015, the appellant herein has been intermittently granted parole for short periods. On 30.11.2022, the appellant 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 (for short, “2018 Rules”) before the Director General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Tihar (hereinafter, “Competent Authority”). However, the same came to be rejected vide order dated 28.04.2023 considering the nature of crime committed, the sentence awarded and apprehension that the appellant may abscond, disturb law and order and cause irreparable damage to the victim’s family.
3.7 Aggrieved by the order rejecting the application for grant of furlough, the appellant filed Writ Petition Criminal No.1682/2023 before the High Court of Delhi seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State to release the petitioner on furlough for a period of three weeks. By impugned order dated 25.11.2024, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court on the ground, inter alia, that there were serious apprehensions with regard to threat to life and liberty of the complainant and the star witness.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 15 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The sentence imposed on the appellant herein, inter alia, is recapitulated as under:
“Life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission, and fine of Rs.10,000/-.”
The word “which” used after the words “life imprisonment”, is an interrogative pronoun, related pronoun and determiner, referring to something previously mentioned when introducing a clause giving further information. Therefore, the sentence of life imprisonment is determined as twenty years which is of actual imprisonment. Further, during the period of twenty years, the appellant cannot seek remission during his sentence of twenty years of imprisonment i.e., after completion of fourteen years as per Section 433A of the CrPC but must continue his sentence for a period of twenty years without any remission whatsoever. Therefore, the appellant has no right to make any application for remission of the above sentence for a period of twenty years.
15.1 In Criminal Appeal Nos.1531-1533 of 2015 filed by Vikas Yadav as well as in Criminal Appeal Nos.1528-1530 of 2015 which also included the appeal filed by the appellant herein, the imposition of a fixed term sentence on the appellants by the High Court was also questioned but this Court observed that such a term of sentence on the appellants by the High Court could not be found fault with. Placing reliance on Gopal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 7 SCC 545, at paragraph 84 of its judgment in the aforesaid criminal appeal, this Court observed that “Judged on the aforesaid parameters, we reiterate that the imposition of fixed terms sentence is justified.”
15.2 In the instant case, as already noted, the life imprisonment being twenty years of actual imprisonment was without consideration of remission. Soon after the period of twenty years is completed, in our view, the appellant has to be simply released from jail provided the other sentences run concurrently. The appellant is not under an obligation to make an application seeking remission of his sentence on completion of twenty years. This is simply for the reason that the appellant has completed his twenty years of actual imprisonment and in fact, during the period of twenty years, the appellant was not entitled to any remission. Thus, in the instant case, on completion of the twenty years’ of actual imprisonment, it is wholly unnecessary for the appellant to seek remission of his sentence on the premise that his sentence is a life imprisonment i.e. till the end of his natural life. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State and respondent-complainant contended that once the period of twenty years is over, which was without any consideration of remission, the appellant had to seek remission of his sentence (life imprisonment) by making an application to the Sentence Review Board which would consider in accordance with the applicable policy and decide whether the remission of sentence imposed on the appellant has to be granted or not. Such a contention cannot be accepted for the following reasons:
(i) firstly, because, in the instant case, the sentence of life imprisonment has been fixed to be twenty years of actual imprisonment which the appellant herein has completed;
(ii) secondly, during the period of twenty years the appellant was not entitled to seek any remission; and
(iii) thirdly, on completion of twenty years of actual imprisonment, the appellant is entitled to be released.
15.3 This is because 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. On the other hand, the High Court has imposed life imprisonment which shall be twenty years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission. The High Court 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.
15.4 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. 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. In fact, 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 this Court. 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. Therefore, the continuous incarceration of the appellant from 09.03.2025 onwards was illegal. In fact, on 10.03.2025, the appellant ought to have been released from prison as he had completed the sentence imposed on him by the High Court as affirmed by this Court.
15.5 In Bhola Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 837, this Court lamented the unfortunate fate of prisoners languishing behind bars even long after completing their period of sentence noted as follows:
“23. …When such a convict is detained beyond the actual release date it would be imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law and would thus, violate not only Article 19(d) but also Article 21 of the Constitution of India. …”
15.6 Although, presently the appellant is not in custody but on furlough for three months pursuant to the interim order dated 25.06.2025 passed by this Court, he need not surrender after expiry of the period of furlough as he has completed his jail sentence of twenty years on 09.03.2025, if not wanted in any other case.
15.7 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.”
Finally, the Bench then most commendably concludes and very rightly draws curtains of this notable judgment by directing and holding aptly in para 16 that, “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. Similarly, a copy of this order shall also be sent by the Registry of this Court 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 this judgment. This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”
Sanjeev Sirohi
