Anilkumar @ Lapetu Ramshakal Sharma vs The State Of Maharashtra

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. of 2025 [ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.8539 OF 2025]

Anilkumar @ Lapetu Ramshakal Sharma …Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, a life convict, is seeking pre-mature

release after almost 20 years of incarceration. The appellant

approached the Government for remission of his life sentence

upon which the Government procured a report from the

Additional District Court, Greater Mumbai, which Court

initially convicted the appellant and passed the sentence of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

imprisonment for life under Section 302 and 7 years rigorous NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.10.07 18:18:54 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 4

Crl.A. No. @ SLP(Crl.) No.8539 of 2025 imprisonment under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code1; to

be undergone concurrently. Based on the opinion of the

learned Additional Sessions Judge that the act committed by

the appellant falls within the purview of Category 4(d) of the

2010 guidelines framed for pre-mature release, the

Government through its Home Department directed his release

after 24 years. The appellant’s contention is that he ought to

have been released after 22 years.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also

the learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondents, who submitted that the guidelines are clear and

the order is issued in tandem with the same. The appellant has

to serve two more years for release is the contention.

4. We have seen the guidelines framed by the Government

for considering remission. The appellant has been directed to

be released after 24 years categorising him as a person who

committed a murder jointly with another person, with

premeditation. The appellant’s contention is that he would fall

1 For short ‘IPC’ Page 2 of 4 Crl.A. No. @ SLP(Crl.) No.8539 of 2025 under Clause 3(b) which refers to a crime committed with

premeditation individually or by a gang, of a murder arising

inter alia out of family prestige.

5. The appellant along with second accused attacked the

deceased and his friend. The attack was a premeditated one,

on the motive as projected by the prosecution, that the

deceased was in love with the appellant’s sister, whose life is

being spoiled by the love affair. The appellate Court has

specifically noticed this and so has the Government in the

impugned order. 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.

6. The custody certificate attached to the Writ Petition

indicates that the appellant has been in custody for 20 years 7

months and 8 days as on 30.09.2024. The appellant has now

been in custody for almost 22 years; short of three months. We

find the appellant’s contention to be valid that the category

Page 3 of 4 Crl.A. No. @ SLP(Crl.) No.8539 of 2025 under which the remission ought to have been considered was

3(b) under Government Resolution No. RLP

No.1006/CR621/PRS-3 dated 15.03.2010.

7. 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, and we hence

direct the release of the appellant forthwith, especially noticing

the fact that the appellant was just past 18 years on the date of

the crime.

8. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………….………………… CJI.

(B. R. GAVAI)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

New Delhi;

October 07, 2025.

Page 4 of 4 Crl.A. No. @ SLP(Crl.) No.8539 of 2025