The Supreme Court of India has demanded an explanation from the State of Madhya Pradesh after a petitioner was found to have been incarcerated for more than eight years beyond his legally mandated sentence. A two-judge bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, described the facts of the case as “quite shocking” and has directed the state to file a reply explaining the “serious lapse.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Sohan Singh @ Bablu, was initially tried by the Sessions Judge, Khurai, in District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 416/2004. He was charged with offences punishable under Sections 376(1) (rape), 450 (house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life), and 506B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000/-.
Following the conviction, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 1613/2005 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur.
High Court Judgment and Sentence Modification
On October 10, 2007, the High Court partly allowed the petitioner’s appeal. While upholding the conviction under Sections 376, 450, and 506-B of the IPC, the High Court reduced the sentence for the offence of rape under Section 376 from life imprisonment to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The sentences for the other offences were upheld, and it was directed that all sentences would run concurrently.
In its judgment, the High Court provided its reasoning for the reduction of the sentence in paragraphs 21 and 22:
“21. In the present case, the prosecutrix was a married lady. There is a delay in lodging the FIR. The medical evidence has not been corroborated to the commission of offence of rape. Looking to the overall circumstances and evidence on record, in our opinion, it would be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for commission of offence punishable under section 376 of IPC be reduced to 7 years.
- Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. His conviction for commission of offence punishable under sections 376, 450 and 506-B is hereby upheld. However, the sentence awarded by the trial court for commission of offence punishable under section 376 of IPC is modified to RI for 7 years and the sentence awarded by the trial court for other sections is hereby upheld. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant shall remain in jail to serve the remaining part of his jail sentence.”
Supreme Court’s Findings and Order
The matter came before the Supreme Court in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 11244/2025. The Court noted a significant and disturbing discrepancy. “The matter of concern is that although the High Court partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence of life imprisonment to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, the petitioner came to be released from jail only on 6-6-2025,” the Supreme Court observed.
Expressing grave concern over the illegal detention, the bench stated, “We would like to know how such a serious lapse occurred and why the petitioner remained in jail for more than 8 years even after undergoing the entire sentence of seven years.”
The Court has ordered the State of Madhya Pradesh to provide an explanation for this prolonged incarceration. “We want the State to offer appropriate explanation in this regard,” the order reads.
The Supreme Court has granted the state two weeks to file its reply and has scheduled the next hearing for September 8, 2025, to be listed at the top of the board.
