'Offence under category of upholding family prestige': SC orders release of murder convict on remission

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed forthwith release of a life term convict on remission, after agreeing to his contention that he ought to have been released after 22 years under the guidelines as his offence "was to uphold family prestige".

The appellant Anilkumar alias Lapetu Ramshakal Sharma was awarded life term for killing a man for love affair with his sister, which he felt, was spoiling her life.

"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,'' a bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran said.

The court allowed the plea for release by the appellant, also noticing the fact that he was just past 18 years on the date of the crime.

The appellant sought premature release upon serving the sentence for 20 years.

The Maharashtra government authorities sought a response from the trial court in Mumbai which held him guilty.

Based on the opinion of the Additional Sessions Judge that the act committed by the appellant fell 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 contended he would fall 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.

The court noted the custody certificate attached to the writ petition indicated that the appellant has been in custody for 20 years 7 months and 8 days as on September 30, 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 under which the remission ought to have been considered was 3(b) under government resolution of March 15,2010,'' the bench said.

Ordering his immediate release, the court felt 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.