The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the Madhya Pradesh government for keeping a convict in prison for nearly five years beyond his lawful sentence, directing the state to pay him ₹25 lakh as compensation.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan said the prolonged incarceration of Sohan Singh, a rape convict, was a grave violation of fundamental rights and amounted to a systemic failure. The court also ordered the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority to conduct a survey of all prisons in the state to ensure no other inmate remains behind bars despite completing their sentence or securing bail.
The bench had earlier described Singh’s ordeal as “quite shocking.” Singh was convicted in 2005 by a sessions court in Khurai, Sagar district, for rape, house trespass and criminal intimidation under Sections 376(1), 450 and 506-B of the IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
However, in October 2017, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, citing delays in filing the FIR and lack of corroborative medical evidence, reduced the sentence to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, while upholding the conviction.
Despite this order, Singh remained in jail for over four years and seven months longer than his lawful term.
When the case came before the apex court earlier this year, it had remarked that Singh appeared to have served nearly eight years beyond his sentence and demanded an explanation. On Monday, the state’s counsel, senior advocate Nachiketa Joshi, clarified that Singh had been on bail for part of the period, and the excess incarceration came to around 4.7 years.
Appearing for Singh, advocate Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki pressed for accountability and highlighted the hardships endured by his client. The bench also expressed strong displeasure at the “misleading affidavits” earlier filed by the state, which overstated the period of excess imprisonment.
Directions for Accountability
Calling the incident a serious miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court directed the state government to explain how such a lapse occurred and to fix responsibility on officials concerned.
“The facts of this case are quite shocking… We would like to know how such a serious lapse occurred and why the petitioner remained in jail for more than seven years even after undergoing the entire sentence of seven years,” the bench had earlier observed in its August 22 order.
By awarding compensation and seeking systemic reform, the top court has made clear that such violations cannot be condoned and must not be repeated.
