SACHINversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 518
- Decided
- 21 April 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that when an appellate sentence is erroneous and the accused has already served a term exceeding the original sentence, the Court may, under Article 142, set aside the erroneous orders, restore the original sentence, and release the accused to accomplish complete justice.
Summary
The appellant was convicted under the POCSO Act and sentenced by the Special Court to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court and the Special Court altered the sentence to life imprisonment with a fine, leading the appellant to serve eleven years and eight months, exceeding the original term. The Supreme Court examined whether the higher sentence was erroneous and whether it could invoke Article 142 to achieve complete justice. Finding the appellate orders erroneous and noting that the appellant had already served more than the original sentence, the Court set aside the life sentence and restored the original seven‑year term. Using its power under Article 142, the Court concluded that the ends of justice were met by releasing the appellant, as he had already served a longer term. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the appellate proceedings were rendered infructuous, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the Supreme Court may exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to set aside an erroneous higher sentence and restore the original sentence to achieve complete justice.
- Whether the appellant had undergone imprisonment for a period longer than the sentence originally imposed by the trial court.
Legislation cited
Headnote
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: 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
Subjects
Judgment
[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 appeal on the original sentence, the matter is concluded
and the appellant is released from jail forthwith.
6. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 pending on the file
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
is rendered infructuous and therefore, the same stands disposed of.
7. Ordered accordingly.
8. Resultantly, the respondent-State and Superintendent, Nagpur
Central Jail, Maharashtra are directed to release the appellant from
the jail forthwith.
9. The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Result of the case: Appeals Allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Gaurav Updadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.