SACHIN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2497 · Decided: 21-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2497 : 2025 INSC 518
Sachin 
v. 
The State of Maharashtra
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 2073-2075 of 2025)
21 April 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and  
Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether it is a fit case to use the power under Article 142 to do 
complete justice.
Headnotes†
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Whether the accused has 
undergone the imprisonment more than the period which he 
was originally subjected by the Trial Court:
Held: The Court 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 – In these circumstances, the impugned 
judgment is set aside – Consequently, the order of the Special 
Court (POCSO) convicting and sentencing the appellant herein 
to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, is set 
aside – The original judgment of the Special Court convicting 
the appellant and imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment 
for seven years survives – The appellant herein while initially 
subjected to imprisonment of seven years has completed actual 
sentence of eleven years and eight months – Since the appellant 
has completed eleven years and eight months of incarceration 
i.e. a sentence more than that originally imposed on him – 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 – The matter is concluded 
and the appellant is released from jail forthwith.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2498
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Life imprisonment; Fine; Complete Justice; Infructuous; Rigorous 
imprisonment; Special Court; POCSO; Incarceration; Remand; 
Sentence of imprisonment; Eleven years; Article 142; Complete 
justice; Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s). 
2073-2075 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2016 in CRLA No. 
30 of 2015, 08.03.2016 in CRLA No. 30 of 2015 and 28.04.2016 
in CN No. 05 of 2013 passed by the Special Judge, Warora, in 
Special (POCSO) Case No. 05 of 2013
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Mrs. Vithika Garg, Ms. Vidushi Garg, Hemant 
Kumar Tripathi.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha 
Pande.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
We have heard learned counsel Ms. Sangeeta Kumar appearing 
on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee for 
the appellant and Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, learned counsel for the 
respondent-State at length.
Operative Portion of the Judgment:
3.	
It is noted that the appellant herein while initially subjected to 
imprisonment of seven years has completed actual sentence of 
eleven years and eight months. 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. In these circumstances, 
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
2499
Sachin v. The State of Maharashtra
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. Consequently, the order 
of the Special Court dated 28.04.2016 passed in Special(POCSO) 
Case No.5/2013 convicting and sentencing the appellant herein to 
suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to 
suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months is set aside.
4.	
Now, what follows is that the original judgment of the Special 
Court convicting the appellant and imposing a sentence of rigorous 
imprisonment for seven years survives. However, the unfortunate 
reality is that in view of the impugned judgment and orders, the 
appellant has undergone eleven years of actual sentence. 
5.	
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 ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.