Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SACHIN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
21 April 2025
Judges listed
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2497 · 2025 INSC 518

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 2498

2

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:

p. 2498

3

It is noted that the appellant herein while initially subjected to imprisonment of seven years has completed actual sentence of eleven years and eight months. We have found that the orders of the High Court and consequently, of the Special Court to be 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.

pp. 2498–2499

4

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.

p. 2499

5

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 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.

p. 2499

6

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.

p. 2499

7

Ordered accordingly.

p. 2499

8

Resultantly, the respondent-State and Superintendent, Nagpur Central Jail, Maharashtra are directed to release the appellant from the jail forthwith.

p. 2499

9

The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Result of the case: Appeals Allowed. Headnotes prepared by: Gaurav Updadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)

p. 2499