The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday directed the immediate release of a life convict, Anilkumar @ Lapetu Ramshakal Sharma, after he had served nearly 22 years in prison. A bench comprising Justices B. R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appellant’s plea for premature release, ruling that his crime, a murder motivated by a perceived slight to “family prestige,” was incorrectly categorized by the State of Maharashtra under its 2010 remission guidelines.
The Court held that the appellant’s case should have been considered under a category that provides for release after 22 years of incarceration, not the 24 years mandated by the government.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Anilkumar Sharma, was seeking premature release after being convicted by the Additional District Court, Greater Mumbai, for murder under Section 302 and attempted murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a concurrent term of seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
After nearly two decades of incarceration, Sharma approached the Government of Maharashtra for remission of his sentence. The government, acting on a report from the convicting court, classified his offence under Category 4(d) of the 2010 guidelines for premature release. This category, pertaining to murders committed jointly and with premeditation, stipulated a minimum of 24 years of imprisonment before release could be considered. Consequently, the government’s Home Department directed his release after 24 years.
Arguments Presented
The appellant challenged this decision, contending that his case was wrongly classified. His counsel argued that the offence correctly falls under Clause 3(b) of the remission guidelines. This clause applies to murders committed with premeditation, either individually or by a gang, arising from motives such as “family prestige.” Under this category, the period of incarceration required for release is 22 years.
The State of Maharashtra, represented by the learned Government Advocate, maintained that the government’s order was issued in strict accordance with the guidelines and that the appellant was required to serve the remaining two years of his 24-year term.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court examined the facts of the original case to determine the motive behind the crime. The judgment noted that the prosecution’s case, which was accepted by the appellate court, established that the attack was premeditated. The motive was that the deceased was in a romantic relationship with the appellant’s sister, which the appellant believed was “spoiling her life.”
Based on this, the Court concluded that the crime was clearly committed to protect what the appellant perceived as the family’s honour. The judgment states, “Hence, obviously the crime is one to uphold the family prestige, which in the given circumstances could mean the perceived tarnishing of the family’s name, though not condonable, the appellant has a valid case for remission after almost 22 years of incarceration.”
The Court found the appellant’s contention that his case should have been considered under Clause 3(b) of the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010 to be valid.
The bench also took into account the period of custody already served by the appellant, which was noted to be just three months short of 22 years. Observing the practical futility of further incarceration for such a short period, the Court remarked, “We are also of the opinion that three months more in jail would make no difference; neither added solace to the family of the victim nor extra remorse to the accused.”
A significant factor in the Court’s decision was the appellant’s age at the time of the offence. The judgment specifically highlights “noticing the fact that the appellant was just past 18 years on the date of the crime.”
Final Decision
Concluding that the appellant’s case was incorrectly categorized, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the government’s order. The bench directed the immediate release of Anilkumar Sharma forthwith.
