Supreme Court | Convict Completing Fixed-Term Life Imprisonment Entitled To Release Without Applying For Remission
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held that where a sentence of “life imprisonment which shall be twenty years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission” has been fully served, the convict is entitled to release without the need to seek remission, provided no other case requires continued detention. The Court directed the release of the appellant, who had completed twenty years of actual incarceration and paid the fine imposed, subject to verification that he was not wanted in any other matter.
The appeal before the Supreme Court originated from the rejection of a furlough application under Rule 1223 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The appellant was convicted under Sections 302, 364, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in connection with a case registered at Police Station Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, on 17 February 2002. The complaint was lodged by the mother of the deceased, leading to an investigation and trial.
Two co-convicts, Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (01), New Delhi, on 28 May 2008 in Sessions Case No. 78/2008 for the offences under Sections 302, 364, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years for kidnapping under Section 364 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for three years for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC, with all sentences to run concurrently, along with substantial fines.
The appellant was convicted on 6 July 2011 in Sessions Case No. 76/2008. On 12 July 2011, the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC with a fine of ₹10,000, rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine for the offence under Section 364 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine for the offence under Section 201 IPC, with all sentences to run concurrently.
The appellant and the co-convicts appealed to the High Court of Delhi. By its judgment dated 6 February 2015, the High Court upheld the convictions but modified the sentences. For the appellant, the High Court imposed “life imprisonment which shall be twenty years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission” with a fine of ₹10,000. It further directed that the sentences for offences under Sections 302/34 and 364/34 IPC would run concurrently, while the sentence for the offence under Section 201/34 IPC would run consecutively. It ordered that fines be deposited within six months and that amounts be transferred to the Delhi Legal Services Authority for victim compensation.
The Supreme Court, in its order dated 3 October 2016, modified the sentence to direct that all sentences run concurrently.
On 17 November 2022, the appellant applied to the Director General of Prisons for grant of furlough. The application was rejected on 28 April 2023, citing the nature of the offence and possible threat to the safety of the complainant and key witness. A writ petition filed before the High Court was dismissed on 25 November 2024, with the High Court recording apprehensions regarding safety of the complainant and material witness.
The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave. While hearing the matter, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant’s sentence, as per the High Court’s order, required him to serve twenty years of actual imprisonment without remission. The State informed the Court that it would not release the appellant despite completion of the twenty years. The Court issued directions to the Home Department to clarify its stand. When the matter did not progress, a contempt notice was issued to the Principal Secretary, Home Department.
On 9 March 2025, during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant completed twenty years of incarceration. On 25 June 2025, the Court granted interim relief allowing furlough for three months, subject to trial court conditions and protective measures for the complainant.
At final hearing, the appellant contended that, having completed the fixed twenty-year term and paid the fine, he was entitled to release without applying for remission. The State and the complainant’s counsel maintained that life imprisonment continued for the convict’s natural life unless remitted, and that completion of the fixed term required consideration by the Sentence Review Board rather than automatic release.
The Court observed that the High Court’s sentence expressly required “twenty years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission.” It stated: “This means that within the twenty years of sentence the appellant could not have sought any remission of his sentence.”
The judgment recorded that the appellant’s position was that having served the complete term and paid the fine, he was entitled to immediate release without the need for remission. The State argued that life imprisonment was for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, and that remission could only be considered after serving the fixed term.
The Bench referred to several precedents, including Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, Maru Ram v. Union of India, Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, Union of India v. V. Sriharan, Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, and Navas alias Mulanavas v. State of Kerala, to delineate the principles relating to life imprisonment, fixed-term sentences, and remission.
The Court stated: “When by way of a judicial decision, in the facts of the case, it is decided that the offender deserves to be punished with imprisonment for a specific period of twenty years, without consideration of remission, such a conclusion should survive without any interruption.”
It further observed: “Within the twenty years of sentence the appellant could not have sought any remission of his sentence. On completion of twenty years of actual imprisonment without remission, the appellant can be released from prison, provided he is not required in any other case.”
The Court distinguished between release on completion of sentence and remission of sentence, noting that remission applies when the convict has not yet served the entire judicially imposed term.
The Court directed that since the appellant had completed the fixed term of twenty years of actual imprisonment without remission and paid the fine, and was not required in any other case, he was to be released forthwith. It ordered: “The appellant shall be deemed to have undergone the sentence imposed upon him by the High Court as modified by this Court and shall not be required to seek remission of sentence.”
It further directed that the State ensure continued protection to the complainant and other concerned persons as per earlier orders regarding furlough conditions.
The appeal was allowed to this extent, and the Court clarified that the question of remission did not arise once the judicially fixed term had been fully served.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Siddharth Mridul, Senior Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, Additional Solicitor General; Ms. Aparajita Singh, Senior Advocate.
Case Title: Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 969
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3271 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17915 of 2024)
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
