Supreme Court Restored Original Seven‑Year Sentence and Ordered Immediate Release After Appellant Served Over Eleven Years

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard special leave petitions challenging orders arising from Special (POCSO) Case No.05/2013 and related Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 before the High Court at Bombay (Nagpur Bench). The appeals contested the validity of subsequent orders which had altered the sentence imposed on the appellant and culminated in a life sentence by a Special Court.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders that had resulted in a life sentence, and restored the original sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years as imposed by the Special Court. The Court found the High Court and the subsequent orders of the Special Court to be "erroneous" and therefore liable to be set aside. The Court relied on its constitutional power under Article 142 to do complete justice and directed that, because the appellant had already undergone eleven years and eight months of actual imprisonment—i.e. a term longer than the original sentence—he should be released forthwith. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the circumstances, we find that to do complete justice in the matter, instead of remanding the Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 on the file of the High Court, we exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and restore the original sentence imposed on the appellant herein which is seven years of imprisonment. Since the appellant has completed eleven years and eight months of incarceration i.e. a sentence more than that originally imposed on him, we find that the ends of justice would be met if, instead of rehearing his appeal on the original sentence, the matter is concluded and the appellant is released from jail forthwith." The Court therefore declared the High Court proceedings "rendered infructuous" and directed immediate release by the Superintendent, Nagpur Central Jail.

Background

The dispute arose from convictions in Special (POCSO) Case No.05/2013 in which the Special Court originally convicted the appellant and imposed seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Subsequent judicial orders, including an impugned judgment dated 26.02.2016 and later orders of March and April 2016, resulted in an order dated 28.04.2016 that recorded conviction and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment with a fine. The appellant filed SLPs (CrL.) Nos. 4795–4797/2025 challenging those orders. The State and the jail authorities appeared and resisted release.

The Supreme Court examined the sequence of orders and found the High Court's and the later Special Court orders to be liable to be set aside. The Court expressly recorded that the "impugned judgment dated 26.02.2016 and subsequent orders passed therein on 02.03.2016 as well as the order dated 08.03.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 are set aside," and that the "order of the Special Court dated 28.04.2016 ... convicting and sentencing the appellant herein to suffer life imprisonment ... is set aside." Rather than remand the matter for reconsideration, the Court applied Article 142 to restore the original seven‑year sentence and to effect immediate release because the term already served exceeded that sentence. The Criminal Appeal pending before the Bombay High Court was rendered infructuous and disposed of. The Court directed the State and the Superintendent, Nagpur Central Jail to release the appellant forthwith. Leave was granted in the SLPs and the operative portion of the judgment was pronounced with the detailed judgment to follow.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 518 (SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4795-4797/2025) Case Title: Sachin v. State of Maharashtra Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, AOR; Mrs. Vithika Garg, Adv.; Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv.; Mr. Hemant Kumar Tripathi, Adv. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.; Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR.