Criminal Law – Premature Release – Life Convict – Government Guidelines for Remission – Categorisation under 2010 Guidelines – Murder arising out of family prestige – Category 3(b) applicable – Release directed.
The appellant, convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, had undergone nearly 22 years of incarceration and sought premature release. The State Government, acting on the opinion of the Additional Sessions Judge, classified the appellant’s case under Category 4(d) of the Government Resolution No. RLP 1006/CR621/PRS-3 dated 15.03.2010, directing release after 24 years. The appellant contended that the act fell under Category 3(b), warranting release after 22 years.
Held, the act arose from an incident of “honour killing” or murder to uphold family prestige—committed jointly, but with motive connected to a love affair of the appellant’s sister, deemed to have tarnished the family’s reputation. Therefore, the appropriate category was Clause 3(b), not 4(d). The Court held that continuation of imprisonment for three more months served no purpose of justice or deterrence.
Direction issued for the appellant’s immediate release, especially considering that he was barely 18 years old at the time of the offence.
RESULT
Appeal allowed – Appellant directed to be released forthwith – Pending applications disposed of.
2025 INSC 1198
Page 1 of 4
Crl.A. No. @ SLP(Crl.) No.8539 of 2025
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. of 2025
[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.8539 OF 2025]
Anilkumar @ Lapetu Ramshakal Sharma
…Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
…Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, a life convict, is seeking pre-mature
release after almost 20 years of incarceration. The appellant
approached the Government for remission of his life sentence
upon which the Government procured a report from the
Additional District Court, Greater Mumbai, which Court
initially convicted the appellant and passed the sentence of
imprisonment for life under Section 302 and 7 years rigorous
Page 2 of 4
Crl.A. No. @ SLP(Crl.) No.8539 of 2025
imprisonment under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code1
; to
be undergone concurrently. Based on the opinion of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge that the act committed by
the appellant falls within the purview of Category 4(d) of the
2010 guidelines framed for pre-mature release, the
Government through its Home Department directed his release
after 24 years. The appellant’s contention is that he ought to
have been released after 22 years.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also
the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents, who submitted that the guidelines are clear and
the order is issued in tandem with the same. The appellant has
to serve two more years for release is the contention.
4. We have seen the guidelines framed by the Government
for considering remission. The appellant has been directed to
be released after 24 years categorising him as a person who
committed a murder jointly with another person, with
premeditation. The appellant’s contention is that he would fall
1
For short ‘IPC’
Page 3 of 4
Crl.A. No. @ SLP(Crl.) No.8539 of 2025
under Clause 3(b) which refers to a crime committed with
premeditation individually or by a gang, of a murder arising
inter alia out of family prestige.
5. The appellant along with second accused attacked the
deceased and his friend. The attack was a premeditated one,
on the motive as projected by the prosecution, that the
deceased was in love with the appellant’s sister, whose life is
being spoiled by the love affair. The appellate Court has
specifically noticed this and so has the Government in the
impugned order. Hence, obviously the crime is one to uphold
the family prestige, which in the given circumstances could
mean the perceived tarnishing of the family’s name, though not
condonable, the appellant has a valid case for remission after
almost 22 years of incarceration.
6. The custody certificate attached to the Writ Petition
indicates that the appellant has been in custody for 20 years 7
months and 8 days as on 30.09.2024. The appellant has now
been in custody for almost 22 years; short of three months. We
find the appellant’s contention to be valid that the category
Page 4 of 4
Crl.A. No. @ SLP(Crl.) No.8539 of 2025
under which the remission ought to have been considered was
3(b) under Government Resolution No. RLP
No.1006/CR621/PRS-3 dated 15.03.2010.
7. We are also of the opinion that three months more in jail
would make no difference; neither added solace to the family
of the victim nor extra remorse to the accused, and we hence
direct the release of the appellant forthwith, especially noticing
the fact that the appellant was just past 18 years on the date of
the crime.
8. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………….………………… CJI.
(B. R. GAVAI)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
New Delhi;
October 07, 2025.
