# Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 969
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-07-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3271 of 2025
- **Bench:** B.V. Nagarathna, K.V. Viswanathan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sukhdev-yadav-pehalwan-v-state-of-nct-of-delhi-others-38479
- **Pages:** 41

## Headnote

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.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,978 of 87,270. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39978 for what follows._

[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. State of Maharashtra
[2013] 15 SCR 1 : (2013) 13 SCC 1; Mohd. Giasuddin v. State
of A.P. [1978] 1 SCR 153 : (1977) 3 SCC 287; Machhi Singh v.
State of Punjab [1983] 3 SCR 413 : (1983) 3 SCC 470 ("Machhi
Singh"); Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1983] 1 SCR 145 :
(1980) 2 SCC 684 ("Bachan Singh"); Subash Chander v. Krishan
Lal [2001] 2 SCR 864 : (2001) 4 SCC 458; Shri Bhagwan v. State
of Rajasthan [2001] 3 SCR 656 : (2001) 6 SCC 296; Prakash
Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra [2001] Supp. 5
SCR 612 : (2002) 2 SCC 35; Ram Anup Singh v. State of Bihar
(2002) 6 SCC 686; Mohd. Munna v. Union of India [2005] Supp.
3 SCR 233 : (2005) 7 SCC 417 ("Mohd. Munna"); Jayawant
Dattatraya Suryarao v. State of Maharashtra [2001] Supp. 5
SCR 54 : (2001) 10 SCC 109; and Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi
[2003] Supp. 2 SCR 884 : (2003) 8 SCC 461; Union of India v.
V. Sriharan [2015] 14 SCR 613 : (2016) 7 SCC 1 ("Sriharan");
Sangeet v. State of Haryana [2012] 13 SCR 85 : (2013) 2 SCC
452; Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka [2024] 3 SCR 329 : (2023)
9 SCC 817 ("Shiva Kumar"); State (NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Raj
[2003] Supp. 2 SCR 235 : (2003) 7 SCC 121; State of Mysore v.
H. Srinivasmurthy [1976] 3 SCR 255 : 1976 1 SCC 817; State
of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh [2000] 1 SCR 698 : (2000) 3 SCC
394; Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan [1987] 2 SCR 1123 : (1987)
3 SCC 347; Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand [2013] 4 SCR
104 : (2013) 7 SCC 545; Bhola Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
[2022] 7 SCR 1176 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 837 - referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Life imprisonment; Life imprisonment for a fixed term without
remission; No remission; Twenty years of actual sentence without
remission; Life imprisonment for twenty years without remission;
Period of twenty years is completed; Entitled to be released from
prison on completion of such a sentence; Completion of the fixed
term of sentence; Life sentence; Period of jail term completed; Life
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
2015
Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others
imprisonment i.e. till the end of his natural life; Seek remission
of sentence of "life imprisonment"; Application to the competent
authority; Not necessary to seek remission of sentence; "reduction of
sentence"; Nitish Katara case; Vikas Yadav; Sentence Review Board;
Furlough; Parole; Remission of sentence; Release on completion of
a sentence in the case of a life sentence; National Legal Services
Authority; Accused/convict in jail beyond the period of sentence.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
3271 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2024 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPCRL No. 1682 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Gaurav Agrawal, Siddharth Mridul, Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Advs.,
Rajendra M Daga, C. George Thomas, Manan Daga, Milind Kumar,
Hemendra Jailiya, Madhurima Mridul, Mimatullah, Deepak Chhikara,
Sohil Batra, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Shreya Rastogi, Vishwajeet
Bhati, Kothari Bhalla, Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Ms. Sakshi Jain,
Vishwajeet Singh, Karan Dhalla, Ms. Mamta Sharma, Vivek Rajan
D.b, Hemant Gupta.
Advs. for the Respondents:
R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, Tushar Mehta,
Solicitor General, Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, Mrs. Archana Pathak
Dave, K M Nataraj, A.S.Gs, Ms. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms.
Vrinda Bhandari, Ms. Pragya Barsaijan, Prakhar Shukla, Shgubham
Rajhans, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Shrirang B. Verma, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna,
Adarsh Dubey, Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Mukesh Kumar
Maroria, Ms. Priyanka Terdal, Ms. Harshita Choubey, Jagdish
Chandra, Annam Venkatesh, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Padmesh
Mishra, Pratyush Shrivastava, Arkaj Kumar, Rajat Nair, Mayank
Pandey, Neelakshi Bhadauria, Kartikay Aggarwal, Ameyavikrama
Thanvi, Chitvan Singal, Abhishak Kr. Pandey, Dr. N. Visakamurthy,
Shailesh Madiyal, Shuvodeep Roy, Merusagar Samantray,
Sabarish Subramanian, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav,
Chitvan Singhal, Kartikey Aggarwal, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Ms.
Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Apoorva Singhal.
2016
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Nagarathna, J.
Leave granted.
2.
The salient question that arises in this appeal is, 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. In other words, 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".
Background Facts:
3.
By the impugned order dated 25.11.2024, the learned single Judge
of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (Crl.) No.1682 of 2023 rejected the
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
release of the appellant on furlough for a period of three weeks
considering the apprehension expressed by the complainant i.e.
mother of the deceased victim and respondent No.3 herein.
3.1 Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25.11.2024, the
appellant has preferred this appeal.
3.2 The relevant facts of the case are that on 17.02.2002, FIR
No.192/2002 was registered at P.S. Kavi Nagar, District
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh under Section 364/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") on the basis of a complaint
filed by Smt. Nilam Katara i.e. complainant and mother of the
deceased. On 28.05.2008, after completion of investigation and
trial, his co-convicts - Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav - were
convicted for commission of offences under Sections 302, 364,
201 read with Section 34 of the IPC in SC No.78/2002 by the
Additional Sessions Judge (01), New Delhi, ("Sessions Court").
Thereafter, they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
as well as fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each under Section 302 of
the IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
2017
Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others
imprisonment for one year. They were sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.50,000/- each for their
conviction under Section 364/34 IPC and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of six months, and
rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each
under Section 201/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months. All sentences
were to run concurrently.
3.3 On 06.07.2011, the appellant herein was found guilty of
commission of offences under Sections 302, 364, 201 read
with Section 34 of the IPC in SC No.76/2008 by the Sessions
Court. Subsequently, on 12.07.2011, the appellant was
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-
for commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC and in
default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for two years; rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine
of Rs.5,000/- for commission of the offence under Section 364
IPC, and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment
for six months; rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine
of Rs.5,000/- for his conviction under Section 201 IPC and in
default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for six months.
All sentences were to run concurrently.
3.4 Aggrieved by their conviction, the co-convicts and the appellant
herein preferred criminal appeals before the High Court of
Delhi. By judgment dated 02.04.2014, the Criminal Appeal
No.145/2012 preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed
by the High Court of Delhi and his conviction was upheld. During
the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, the State had also
preferred Criminal Appeal No.1322/2011 against the appellant
along with Criminal Appeal No.958/2008 against the co-convicts
seeking enhancement of sentence of life imprisonment to
imposition of death penalty. The complainant had also preferred
Criminal Revision Petition No.369/2008 against the order of
the Sessions Court, seeking enhancement of sentence for all
convicts including the appellant herein. By judgment dated
06.02.2015, the High Court disposed of all appeals and the
revision petition by modifying the sentence imposed upon the
appellant by judgment and order dated 12.07.2021 and directed
that he shall undergo the sentence as extracted hereunder:-
2018
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
"881
xxx
(I)
For
commission
of offences
under
Sentences awarded
to each of Vikas
Yadav & Vishal
Yadav
Sentence awarded
to Sukhdev Yadav
Section
302/34 IPC
Life imprisonment
which shall be 25
y e a r s o f a c t u a l
imprisonment without
consideration of
remission, and fine
of Rs.50 lakh each
Life imprisonment
which shall be 20
y e a r s o f a c t u a l
imprisonment without
consideration of
remission, and fine
of Rs.10,000/-."
Upon default in
payment of fine,
they shall be liable
to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of 3
years.
Upon default in
payment of fine,
he shall be liable
to undergo simple
imprisonment for one
month
Section
364/34 IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years
with a fine of Rs. 2
lakh each,
10 years rigorous
imprisonment with
fine of Rs. 5,000/-,
Upon default in
payment of fine,
they shall be liable
to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 6
months
Upon default in
payment of fine,
he shall be liable
to undergo simple
imprisonment for 15
days.
Section
201/34 IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with
a fine of Rs. 2 lakh
each,
5 years rigorous
imprisonment with
fine of Rs. 5,000/-,
Upon default in
payment of fine,
they shall be liable
to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 6
months
Upon default in
payment of fine,
he shall be liable
to undergo simple
imprisonment for 15
days.
(underlining by us)
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
2019
Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others
(II) It is directed that the sentences for conviction
of the offences under Section 302/34 and Section
364/34 IPC shall run concurrently. The sentence
under Section 201/34 IPC shall run consecutively to
the other sentences for the discussion and reasons
in paras 741 to 745 above.
(III) The amount of the fines shall be deposited with
the trial court within a period of six months from today.
xxx
(V) Amount of fines deposited by Sukhdev Yadav
and other fines deposited by Vikas Yadav and
Vishal Yadav shall be forwarded to the Delhi Legal
Services Authority to be utilized under the Victims
Compensation Scheme.
(VI) In case an application for parole or remission
is moved by the defendants before the appropriate
government, notice thereof shall be given to Nilam
Katara as well as Ajay Katara by the appropriate
government and they shall also be heard with regard
thereto before passing of orders thereon."
3.5 Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant herein
preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.1528-1530/2015 before this
Court which, along with appeals preferred by co-convicts, was
disposed of by a common judgment dated 03.10.2016, with a
singular modification in the sentence, i.e. the sentence under
Section 201/34 IPC shall run concurrently.
3.6 Since the year 2015, the appellant herein has been intermittently
granted parole for short periods. On 30.11.2022, the appellant
moved an application seeking grant of first spell of furlough for
a period of three weeks as per Rule 1223 of the Delhi Prison
Rules, 2018 (for short, "2018 Rules") before the Director General
of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Tihar (hereinafter, "Competent
Authority"). However, the same came to be rejected vide order
dated 28.04.2023 considering the nature of crime committed,
the sentence awarded and apprehension that the appellant may
abscond, disturb law and order and cause irreparable damage
to the victim's family.
2020
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3.7 Aggrieved by the order rejecting the application for grant of
furlough, the appellant filed Writ Petition Criminal No.1682/2023
before the High Court of Delhi seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the State to release the petitioner on furlough for a
period of three weeks. By impugned order dated 25.11.2024,
the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed by
the High Court on the ground, inter alia, that there were serious
apprehensions with regard to threat to life and liberty of the
complainant and the star witness.
4.
Hence, this appeal.
5.
By Order dated 06.01.2025, this Court issued notice in the instant
matter. During subsequent hearings, this Court passed the following
order on 24.02.2025:
"We have perused the judgment of the High Court dated
6th February, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2012. As
regards the sentence awarded to the petitioner, in paragraph
881 of the operative part of the judgment, it is stated thus:
"Life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of
actual imprisonment without consideration of
remission, and fine of Rs.10,000/-."
The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
respondent State of Delhi states that even after completion
of 20 years of actual imprisonment, the State Government
will not release the petitioner, notwithstanding what is stated
in paragraph 881 of the judgment of the High Court which
has attained finality.
We direct the Secretary of the Home Department of the
State of NCT of Delhi to file an affidavit making a statement
on oath on the question whether after completing 20 years
of actual sentence, the petitioner will be released. An
affidavit to be filed by 28th February, 2025.
List on 3rd March, 2025."
(underlining by us)
5.1 On 03.03.2025, this Court adjourned the matter for two weeks
on the assurance of the learned Additional Solicitor General
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
2021
Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others
(ASG) appearing for the State that the case of the appellant
for remission shall be considered and decided within a period
of two weeks from the date of the order. However, as the same
was not done by the next date of hearing i.e. 17.03.2025; this
Court issued notice to the Principal Secretary of the Home
Department of Delhi Government calling upon him to indicate
why action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should
not be initiated against him. The order of this Court recorded
as follows:
"A solemn statement on instructions of the State
Government was recorded in this order. Now we
are informed that Sentence Review Board is likely to
consider the case of the petitioner today. The State
Government has not shown elementary courtesy of
making an application for grant of extension of time.
We, therefore, issue notice to the Principal Secretary
of the Home Department of Delhi Government calling
upon him to show why action under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against him.
Notice of contempt is made returnable on 28th March,
2025. We direct the Secretary to remain present
through video conference."
5.2 Pertinently, during the pendency of the instant appeal, the
appellant completed twenty years of actual incarceration on
09.03.2025.
5.3 On 28.03.2025, this Court listed the matter on 22.04.2025 for
considering the issue whether the appellant is entitled to be
released on completion of actual twenty years of incarceration.
However, on 22.04.2025, despite its clear and advance
notice to all parties that this Court will consider the aforesaid
substantive question of sentencing, the learned ASG raised
a preliminary objection after a half an hour of arguments that
since the appellant had not canvassed this ground in his
petition, this Court could not go into the question. In these
circumstances, the appellant was directed to file an amended
petition within three days from the date of the order, which
recorded as follows:
2022
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
"The learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner completed his submissions. The learned
ASG appearing for the State of NCT of Delhi,
after making submissions for half an hour, raised
a preliminary objection that the petitioner has not
raised a plea in this Petition that he is entitled to
be released after undergoing actual sentence of 20
years. Thus, the submission in short was that this
Court cannot go into this question. As indicated in
the earlier two orders, which we have quoted above,
make it clear that we had put the learned counsel for
the parties to the notice that the issue whether the
petitioner is entitled to be released on completion of
20 years of incarceration will be considered today.
While the learned ASG was arguing, we thought that
the Advocates waiting for other cases should not be
made to wait as remaining part of the day's time was
likely to be consumed in this case. Therefore, at 3:15
p.m., we discharged the rest of the cases on the cause
list and informed the members of the Bar that those
cases will not be taken up. Fifteen minutes thereafter,
this preliminary objection was raised by the learned
ASG. Therefore, raising such a preliminary objection
after arguing the case for half an hour especially in
the light of the two orders which we have quoted
above, is unfair to the other litigants whose cases
were listed before this Court today. Since this strong
objection has been raised, we permit the petitioner to
amend the Petition for raising the contention noted in
the earlier orders, though this amendment is strictly
not required in view of our earlier orders. We direct
the petitioner to file an amended petition within three
days from today with an advance copy to the learned
counsel representing the respondents."
5.4 On 07.05.2025, the application seeking permission to amend
the special leave petition was allowed by this Court. Having
completed twenty years of actual incarceration on 09.03.2025,
the appellant also moved I.A. No.147782/2025 seeking release
on furlough for a suitable period during the pendency of instant
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
2023
Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others
special leave petition. By Order dated 25.06.2025, this Court
allowed the application and granted the relief of furlough to the
appellant for a period of three months from the date of release,
subject to appropriate terms and conditions to be imposed by
the learned trial court. The said order reads as under:
"I.A. No.147782/2025 in SLP (Crl.) No.17915/2024
We have heard Shri Siddharth Mridul, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave,
learned A.S.G. for the respondent(s)/State and Ms.
Vrinda Bhandari, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
This interlocutory application has been filed by the
petitioner seeking the relief of his release on furlough
for a suitable period during the pendency of the related
special leave petition.
Be it stated that the related SLP(Crl) No. 17915/2024
has been preferred by the petitioner against the
order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the High Court of
Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No.1682/2023 [Sukhdev Yadav
@ Pehalwan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi] whereby and
whereunder prayer of the petitioner for grant of
furlough was rejected.
Be it stated that petitioner was convicted by the Trial
Court under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
In Criminal Appeal No.145/2012, the High Court
passed judgment and order dated 06.02.2015
enhancing the sentence of the petitioner to life
imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual
imprisonment without consideration of remission and
fine of Rs.10,000/-. This order of the High Court has
been affirmed by this Court.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner had completed 20 years of actual
imprisonment without consideration of remission on
09.03.2025. However, prior thereto the related Writ
2024
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Petition, i.e., W.P. (Crl.) No.1682/2023 was filed
before the High Court seeking furlough for a period
of three weeks.
As noted above, by the impugned order dated
25.11.2024, the said prayer was rejected.
In the course of hearing of the main SLP, this Court
permitted the petitioner to amend the Special Leave
Petition incorporating the ground that petitioner's
sentence would come to an end on undergoing 20
years of actual incarceration without remission.
In the hearing today, learned A.S.G very fairly
submits that since it is a matter of furlough, Court
may consider passing appropriate order. But, at the
same time, the security of the informant should also
be taken into consideration by the Court as she has
already been offered security by the State because
of the circumstances surrounding the case.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently
objects to the prayer of the petitioner. She submits that
conduct of the petitioner leaves much to be desired
and would not entitle him to any discretionary relief
from the Court. In this connection, she has referred
to an order dated 06.02.2025 passed by a learned
Judge of the High Court in W.P. (Crl.) No.1848/2020
whereby the learned Judge recused herself from
hearing the matter observing that attempts have been
made to influence the Court.
While such conduct is highly deplorable and
condemnable, there is nothing on record to show
whether any enquiry was conducted to find out who
had indulged in such reprehensible activity. In the
absence thereof, it would not be just and proper to
deny relief to the petitioner on that count.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
taking an overall view of the matter, more particularly
the factum that petitioner has completed 20 years
of uninterrupted incarceration without remission, as
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
2025
Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others
ordered by the High Court which was affirmed by the
Supreme Court, we are of the view that it is a fit case
where petitioner deserves to be released on furlough
at least for a limited duration. Of course, necessary
conditions would have to be imposed on the petitioner
so that liberty of furlough is not misused. That apart,
safety and security of respondent Nos.2 and 3 are
also required to be protected.
That being the position, we grant furlough to the
petitioner for a period of three months from the date
of release. Petitioner shall be produced before the
learned Trial Court within a maximum period of seven
days from today, whereafter the learned Trial Court
shall release the petitioner on furlough on appropriate
terms and conditions including concerning safety and
security of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
The Interlocutory Application is disposed of.
List the matters before the Regular Bench on
29.07.2025, as already ordered."
6.
Admittedly, during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, on
09.03.2025 the appellant has completed his jail sentence inasmuch
as he served the sentence which was awarded to him under Section
302/34 of the IPC vide paragraph 881 of the order of the High Court
of Delhi dated 06.02.2015. For convenience, the same is extracted
as under:
"Life Imprisonment which shall be twenty years of actual
imprisonment without consideration of remission and fine
of Rs.10,000/-."
(underlining by us)
Submissions:
7.
We have heard learned senior counsel Sri Siddharth Mridul for the
appellant and learned ASG Ms. Archana Pathak Dave appearing for
the respondent(s)-State and learned senior counsel Ms. Aparajita
Singh for the respondent No.2/complainant and perused the material
on record.
2026
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7.1 It was submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that the appellant has complied with
the sentence imposed on him and learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the respondent(s)-State has also
acknowledged the fact that he has completed twenty years
of actual imprisonment. In the circumstances, the appellant
is entitled to be released on completion of his sentence.
Consequently, it was contended that it would be unnecessary
to go into the question of the correctness or otherwise of the
impugned order dated 25.11.2024 and the appeal may be
allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms on the basis
of the aforesaid admitted facts.
7.2 Learned senior counsel Sri Mridul further contended that
although the application filed by the appellant for release on
furlough has not been accepted and in fact, the writ petition
filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution has
been dismissed by the High Court, the significant fact that on
09.03.2025, the appellant has completed his sentence inasmuch
as he has undergone incarceration for twenty years and has
also paid the fine would entitle him to be released. Since by
interim order dated 25.06.2025, this Court has released the
appellant on furlough, the appellant may be stated to have
been released from jail on completion of his sentence, if not
wanted in any other case.
7.3 Per contra, learned ASG appearing for the respondent-State
contended that the appellant has been sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment. That the period of incarceration being twenty
years is to be construed as the period without remission.
However, on completion of the period of twenty years, the
Sentence Review Board would have to consider whether the
appellant is entitled to be released from jail or not. This would
be on remission of his life sentence. That having regard to the
serious crime in which the appellant has been convicted of and
the fact that he has sustained the sentence of life imprisonment,
he cannot straightaway seek release from jail in the absence of
any application being made seeking remission of his sentence.
In other words, it was contended that it is necessary to consider
as to, whether, the appellant is entitled for release from jail at
all inasmuch as he has been sentenced to life imprisonment
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
2027
Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others
and hence, unless there is an order of remission of sentence
passed in favour of the appellant remitting his sentence of life
imprisonment, he cannot be released from jail. Therefore, on
completion of the period of three months furlough granted by
this Court, the appellant has to surrender and return to jail.
7.4 Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondentcomplainant also echoed the very same submission and in
that regard referred to the judgments of this Court in the case
of Navas alias Mulanavas vs. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 315 ("Navas alias Mulanavas") and Maru Ram
vs. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 ("Maru Ram"), to
contend that the appellant cannot be simply released from jail
only because he has completed twenty years of incarceration
when in fact he has been sentenced to life imprisonment. It
was therefore vehemently submitted by the learned senior
counsel for the respective respondents that the appeal would
not call for any further consideration and the same may be
dismissed.
7.5 By way of reply arguments, learned senior counsel Sri Mridul
submitted that there is a distinction between release from jail
on completion of sentence of imprisonment and remission of
a sentence. He pointed out that remission of a sentence is
considered when the sentence is not yet complete whereas
release from jail is only upon completion of the period of
incarceration that the convict was sentenced to undergo. It
is not in dispute that on 09.03.2025, the appellant herein
completed his jail sentence of imprisonment being twenty years
and therefore was entitled to be released from jail; however,
the respondents have raised highly technical and irrelevant
submissions before this Court which has delayed the release.
Nevertheless, this Court has been pleased to grant a furlough
order dated 25.06.2025 only for a period of three months,
which implies that he would have to surrender on completion
of the said period.
7.6 Learned senior counsel argued that the course of action
suggested by the State to be taken in the case of the appellant,
that is, the appellant for seeking remission of his sentence must
be made by him (which could also be rejected) would be illegal
2028
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and contrary to the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the
appellant and in violation of appellant's right to liberty. That the
submissions of the learned senior counsel for the respondents
would tantamount to sitting in judgment over a judicial order
imposing the sentence on the appellant herein by the High
Court which has been sustained by this Court and, therefore,
no other authority can interfere with the sentence imposed on
the appellant. Learned senior counsel therefore contended that
the appellant would no longer require to plead for remission of
a sentence or for furlough in future as he has completed his
period of imprisonment being twenty years and is, therefore,
entitled to be released on such completion of a sentence, if
not wanted in any other case. Learned senior counsel for the
appellant submitted that the objections raised by the respondents
are wholly unsustainable and therefore, bearing in mind the
aforesaid facts, the appeal may be allowed.
8.
In light of the aforesaid rival contentions, it is necessary to delineate
on the distinction between remission of sentence and release on
completion of a sentence of an accused-convict in the case of a life
sentence. But before that, it is necessary to understand the meaning
of the phrase "life imprisonment".
Life Imprisonment:
8.1 Section 53 of the IPC speaks about various punishments which
could be ordered against the offenders and imprisonment for life
is one of such punishment. The said Section reads as under:
"53. Punishments.- The punishments to which
offenders are liable under the provisions of this
Code are -
First. - Death;
Secondly. - Imprisonment for life;
***[Clause "Thirdly" omitted by Act 17 of 1949, sec.
2 (w.e.f. 6.4.1949].
Fourthly. - Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions,
namely :-
(1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour;
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
2029
Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others
(2) Simple;
Fifthly. - Forfeiture of property;
Sixthly. - Fine."
Section 57 of the IPC is also relevant and is extracted
as under:
"57. Fractions of terms of punishment.- In
calculating fractions of terms of punishment,
imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent
to imprisonment for twenty years."
8.2 The expression life imprisonment has been considered in
various decisions of this Court which could be adverted to at
this stage. In Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1961 SC 600 ("Gopal Vinayak Godse"), it was observed
that a sentence of imprisonment for life must prima facie be
treated as imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period
of the convicted person's natural life. In Ashok Kumar alias
Golu vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1792, it was observed
that the expression "imprisonment for life" must be read
in the context of Section 45, IPC. Then, it would ordinarily
mean imprisonment for the full or complete span of life. In
Saibanna vs. State of Karnataka, (2005) 4 SCC 165, it was
observed that life imprisonment means to serve imprisonment
for the remainder of his life unless sentence is commuted or
remitted. It cannot be equated with any fixed term. In Swamy
Shraddananda (2) vs. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC
767 ("Swamy Shraddananda (2)"), it was observed that it is
conclusively settled by a catena of decisions that the punishment
of imprisonment for life handed down by the Court means a
sentence of imprisonment for the convict for the rest of his
life. However, further discussion of this case is made later. In
Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 3 SCC 294, it
was observed that life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to
imprisonment for fourteen years or twenty years or even thirty
years, rather it always means the whole natural life. In Yakub
Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13
SCC 1, it was observed that imprisonment for life is to be
treated as rigorous imprisonment for life. It was also observed
2030
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
that life imprisonment cannot be considered as equivalent to
imprisonment for fourteen years or twenty years or even thirty
years, rather it always means the whole natural life.
8.3 However, in a catena of cases, the punishment of imprisonment
for life has been restricted to certain number of years, for
instance twenty years or thirty years or thirty-five years. In such
a situation, would it mean, on completion of the fixed term of
imprisonment, say twenty years as in the instant case, that the
accused-convict would have to continue to remain in jail for the
remainder of his life or become entitled to be released from jail
on completion of the term of twenty years?
8.4 Krishna Iyer, J. in Mohd. Giasuddin vs. State of A.P., (1977)
3 SCC 287, quoted (at SCC p. 290, para 9) George Bernard
Shaw, the famous satirist who said, "If you are to punish a
man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform
him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by
injuries." According to him, humanity today views sentencing
as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into
criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in
the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defence.
Thus, the reformative approach to punishment should be the
object of criminal law, in order to promote rehabilitation without
offending communal conscience and to secure social justice.
9.
In Swamy Shraddananda (2), a three-Judge Bench of this Court
considered the question as to how would the sentence of imprisonment
for life works out in actuality. This Court pondered over the definition
of the word "life" in Section 45 of the IPC which has been defined
to denote the life of the human being, unless the contrary appears
from the context. Further, whether this Court, which commutes the
punishment of death awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the
High Court as life imprisonment, would mean literally for life or in any
case, for a period far in excess of fourteen years. It was observed
that this Court in its judgment may make its intent explicit and state
clearly that the sentence handed over to the convict is imprisonment
till his last breath or, life permitting, imprisonment for a term not less
than twenty, twenty-five or even thirty years. But once the judgment
is pronounced, the execution of the sentence passes into the hands
of the executive and is governed by the different provisions of law.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
2031
Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Others
This Court questioned as to how the sentence of imprisonment for
life (till its full natural span) given to a convict as a substitute for
the death sentence be viewed differently and segregated from the
ordinary life imprisonment given as the sentence of first choice.
9.1 The appellant in the said case, on conviction, was imposed
the death sentence, which was confirmed by the High Court.
A two-Judge Bench of this Court concurred on the conviction
of the appellant but was unable to agree on the punishment
to be meted out to him. Sinha, J. felt that in the facts and
circumstances of the case the punishment of life imprisonment,
rather than death would serve the ends of justice. However,
he opined, the appellant would not be released from prison till
the end of his life. Katju, J.