Sachin vs State Of Maharashtra

2025 INSC 518 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. /2025 (@SLP (CRL.)NOS. 4795-4797/2025)

SACHIN APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Leave granted.

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:

It is noted that the appellant herein while

initially subjected to imprisonment of seven years has

completed actual sentence of eleven years and eight Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA months. We have found that the orders of the High Date: 2025.04.21 17:25:25 IST Reason:

Court and consequently, of the Special Court to be

1 erroneous and the same are liable to be set aside. In

these circumstances, 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.

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.

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

2 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.

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.

Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, the respondent-State and

Superintendent, Nagpur Central Jail, Maharashtra are

directed to release the appellant from the jail

forthwith.

3 The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.

……………………………………………………………….,J.

(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

………………………………………………………………..,J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 21, 2025

4 ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4795-4797/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-02-2016 in CRLA No. 30/2015 08-03-2016 in CRLA No. 30/2015 28-04-2016 in CN No. 05/2013 passed by the Special Judge, Warora, in Special (POCSO) Case No.05/2013]

SACHIN Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)

(IA No. 73732/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 73733/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 21-04-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, AOR Mrs. Vithika Garg, Adv.

Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv.

Mr. Hemant Kumar Tripathi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Permission is granted to learned counsel for the

petitioner to correct the typographical error at ‘page 27’

of the memorandum of Special Leave Petitions to substitute

the words “Odisha”, “Odisha Secretariat” and “Bhubaneswar-

751001” with “Maharashtra”, “CS Office Main Building,

Mantralaya, 6th Floor, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai-400032”.

Similarly, the word “Circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar”

5 shall be substituted with “Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur

(MS) as convict prisoner No.C/8959)”.

Leave granted.

The respondent-State and Superintendent, Nagpur

Central Jail, Maharashtra are directed to release the

appellant from jail forthwith.

Hence, operative portion of the judgment is being

released today while the detailed judgment will be

released shortly.

The appeals are allowed and disposed of.

(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

(OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE)

6