Eleven Years in Jail for a Seven-Year Sentence — Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Quash Life Term and Orders Immediate Release

The appellant has completed eleven years and eight months of incarceration — a sentence more than that originally imposed on him… to do complete justice, we restore the original sentence of seven years” - In a powerful and empathetic ruling Supreme Court of India  set aside the life sentence imposed on the appellant by the Special Court and affirmed by the Bombay High Court, observing that the man had already undergone over eleven years of incarceration for an offence where the original sentence was just seven years.

Invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court declared, “we find that the ends of justice would be met if, instead of rehearing his appeal… the matter is concluded and the appellant is released from jail forthwith.”

The appellant, Sachin, had originally been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment by the Special Court in Special (POCSO) Case No. 5 of 2013. However, by a series of judicial errors, including orders dated 26.02.2016, 02.03.2016, and 08.03.2016, his sentence was later enhanced to life imprisonment. These enhancements were upheld by the High Court at Nagpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 30/2015.

The Supreme Court noted with grave concern that the appellant, due to these erroneous orders, had already served eleven years and eight months in custody. Expressing disapproval of the manner in which the judicial process had unfolded, the Court held:

“We have found that the orders of the High Court and consequently, of the Special Court to be erroneous and the same are liable to be set aside.”

It further declared that the original judgment of the Special Court sentencing the appellant to seven years alone shall stand, adding:

“Instead of remanding the Criminal Appeal… we exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and restore the original sentence.”

Acknowledging the prolonged and unjustified imprisonment, the bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued an unambiguous direction:

“The respondent-State and Superintendent, Nagpur Central Jail, Maharashtra are directed to release the appellant from jail forthwith.”

The Court also rendered the pending appeal infructuous, noting that the matter had been fully resolved by virtue of its constitutional intervention:

“Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 pending on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, is rendered infructuous and therefore, the same stands disposed of.”

The bench chose not to prolong the litigation or subject the appellant to further trauma through remand or retrial, but instead used its plenary power to end the injustice instantly.

This decision stands as a resounding affirmation of the Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate protector of personal liberty and constitutional justice. By invoking Article 142, the Court not only corrected a clear miscarriage of justice but also reaffirmed that courts must be alert to prevent excessive and unlawful punishment, especially when caused by judicial oversight.

In the Court’s words, “Since the appellant has completed eleven years and eight months of incarceration — a sentence more than that originally imposed on him — the ends of justice would be met by ordering his release.”

This is not just a legal correction. It is a statement — that liberty matters, and no citizen should serve even one extra day in prison beyond what justice demands.

Date of Decision: April 21, 2025