LexSUKHDEV YADAV @ PEHALWAN versus STATE OF (NCT OF DELHI) & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2012 : 2025 INSC 969 Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others (Criminal Appeal No. 3271 of 2025) 29 July 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether, an accused/convict who has completed his “life imprisonment for a fixed term” such as twenty years of actual sentence without remission, as in the instant case, is entitled to be released from prison on completion of such a sentence or in other words, whether on completion of the fixed term of sentence as aforesaid, should the accused/convict seek remission of his sentence of “life imprisonment” by making an application to the competent authority for seeking “reduction of his sentence”. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.53, 57 – “life imprisonment” – Constitution of India – Art.21 – An accused/convict having completed his “life imprisonment for a fixed term” such as twenty years of actual sentence without remission, as in the present case, if entitled to be released from prison on completion of such a sentence: Held: Yes – In all cases where an accused/convict has completed his period of jail term, he is entitled to be released forthwith and not continued in imprisonment if not wanted in any other case as u/Art.21 no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law – In the present case, the life imprisonment being twenty years of actual imprisonment was without consideration of remission – Soon after the period of twenty years is completed, the appellant has to be simply released from jail provided the other sentences run concurrently – Appellant is not under an obligation to make an application seeking remission of his sentence on completion of twenty years because he has completed his twenty years of actual imprisonment and in fact, during the period of twenty years, the * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2013 Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others appellant was not entitled to any remission – Thus, on completion of the twenty years’ of actual imprisonment, it is wholly unnecessary for the appellant to seek remission of his sentence on the premise that his sentence is a life imprisonment i.e. till the end of his natural life – The release of the appellant from jail does not depend upon further consideration as to whether he has to be released or not and as to whether remission has to be granted to him or not by the Sentence Review Board – The Sentence Review Board cannot sit in judgment over what was judicially determined as the sentence by the High Court which was affirmed by this Court – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.432, 433-A. [Paras 15.2, 15.4, 15.7] Directions by Supreme Court – Accused/convicts having completed their period of jail term, are entitled to be released forthwith and not continued in imprisonment if not wanted in any other case – A copy of this order to be circulated to all the Home Secretaries of the States/Union Territories to ascertain whether any accused/convict has remained in jail beyond the period of sentence and if so, to issue directions for release of such accused/convicts, if not wanted in any other case. [Paras 15.7, 16] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.432, 433-A – Remission of sentence vis-à-vis release on completion of a sentence of an accused-convict in the case of a life sentence – Distinction between, stated. Words and Phrases – “life imprisonment” – Meaning – Discussed – Penal Code, 1860 – s.53, 57. Case Law Cited Sarat Chandra Rabha v. Khagendranath Nath [1961] 2 SCR 133 : AIR 1961 SC 334; State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh [2007] 11 SCR 932 : (2007) 13 SCC 606; Satish v. State of U.P. [2020] 9 SCR 21 : (2021) 14 SCC 580 – relied on. Navas alias Mulanavas v. State of Kerala [2024] 3 SCR 913 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 315 (“Navas alias Mulanavas”); Maru Ram v. Union of India [1981] 1 SCR 1196 : (1981) 1 SCC 107 (“Maru Ram”); Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra [1961] 3 SCR 440 : AIR 1961 SC 600 (“Gopal Vinayak Godse”); Ashok Kumar alias Golu v. Union of India [1991] 2 SCR 858 : AIR 1991 SC 1792; Saibanna v. State of Karnataka [2005] 3 SCR 760 : 2014 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports (2005) 4 SCC 165; Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka [2008] 11 SCR 93 : (2008) 13 SCC 767 (“Swamy Shraddananda (2)”); Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2013] 3 SCR 90 : (2013) 3 SCC 294; Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. St
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.