The present Miscellaneous Application No.1802/2026 has
been preferred by the applicant/appellant, one Sudesh Pal,
seeking this Court’s indulgence to modify the judgment and order
this Court wherein the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded
to him by the High Court was confirmed. The said miscellaneous
application has been filed by applicant/appellant praying for his
release on account of prolonged incarceration, old age and on
parity with the co-accused, Madan whose sentence of death
penalty was modified by this Court to imprisonment for a fixed
term of twenty years and is therefore now released having
completed his sentence.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 14.10.2003,
an FIR No.197 of 2003 was registered based on a written
complaint against nine accused including the applicant/appellant
herein at Police Station Babri, District Muzaffarnagar, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 and 323 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). On
13.07.2005, charges were framed against the applicant/appellant
and other co-accused persons by the Sessions Court under
Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149 and subsequently,
vide judgement and order dated 31.07.2015, the
applicant/appellant and the co-accused Madan and Ishwar were
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. The
applicant/appellant and co-accused Madan were awarded death
penalty a fine of Rs.50,000/-, whereas the third co-accused
Ishwar was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Aggrieved, the applicant/appellant, co-accused Madan and
Ishwar, assailed their convictions and sentences in Capital Case
No.3359 of 2015, Capital Case No.3320 of 2015 and Criminal
Appeal No.3519 of 2015 respectively before the High Court of
Judicature of Allahabad. Vide judgment dated 22.02.2017, the
appeal filed by the applicant/appellant was partly allowed
whereby his sentence of death penalty was converted into
imprisonment for life whereas appeal filed by co-accused Madan
was dismissed and the sentence of death penalty awarded to him
was upheld. The criminal appeal filed by co-accused Ishwar was
dismissed and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to
him was upheld. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
22.02.2017, the co-accused Madan and the present
appellant/applicant, preferred Special Leave Petitions before this
Court.
By way of a common judgment dated 09.11.2023, Criminal
Appeal No.1790 of 2017 preferred by the applicant/appellant was
dismissed and thereby his sentence of imprisonment for life
awarded by the High Court was confirmed. With respect to the
criminal appeal preferred by the co-accused Madan, this Court,
while confirming his conviction under Section 302 IPC converted
the death penalty imposed upon him to imprisonment for a fixed
term of twenty years without remission.
Aggrieved, the applicant/appellant has preferred the present
Miscellaneous Application for modification of his sentence on
account of his good conduct and behaviour, old age and long
incarceration by converting the sentence of imprisonment for life
to twenty years of actual imprisonment and by treating him at par
with other co-accused.
We have heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant
as well as learned standing counsel for the respondent-State.
We have perused the material on record.
During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant drew our attention to the fact that both the
applicant/appellant herein as well as the co-accused-Madan were
imposed with death penalty by the Sessions Court. In the High
Court, the death penalty of the applicant herein was converted
into life imprisonment while that of the co-accused Madan was
sustained. Thereafter, in their appeals before this Court, the
sentence of the co-accused Madan was modified from death
penalty to life imprisonment, for a fixed term of twenty years and
since he had already undergone imprisonment for the said period,
he was released.
Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submitted that
insofar as the applicant herein is concerned, the principle of
parity may be applied and a similar sentence may be imposed
inasmuch as the applicant has also completed over twenty four
years of sentence with remission. He therefore submitted that the
application may be allowed on par with the case of the co-
accused-Madan.
Per contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent-
State submitted that the co-accused-Madan was granted the
benefit of a fixed term imprisonment owing to his medical
condition and since the said aspect does not occur in the case of
the applicant herein, the principle of parity may not be applied.
We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar.
We note the applicant herein has already completed twenty
four years’ of imprisonment with remission. The point to be
considered is the principle of parity with regard to the nature of
the punishment that has been imposed on the accused. When the
benefit of commutation of death penalty to life imprisonment was
granted by this court to the co-accused Madan and the
imprisonment also was for a fixed term of twenty years and he
has been released, we find that by application of the principle of
party, insofar as the case of the applicant is concerned, who was
not imposed the death penalty by the High Court, but had the
benefit of commutation to life imprisonment must also be
restricted to a similar period of twenty years.
Since the applicant has already completed the twenty years
of imprisonment with remission, we find that the ends of justice
would be served if he is directed to be released. Consequently, we
direct that the applicant shall be released forthwith.
Miscellaneous application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
[ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 0911-2023 IN CRL.A. NO. NO. 1790/2017 PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]
IA NO. 271775/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA NO. 168319/2026 - DISCHARGE OF ADVOCATE ON RECORD IA NO. 271785/2025 - EX-PARTE BAIL IA NO. 271778/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING PAPER BOOKS
Date : 15-07-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aarif Ali, Adv.
Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR
Mr. Rajkumar Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Mohd Faiz Ahmed, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR
Mr. Ambrish Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Srikant Singh, Adv.
Mr. Srajan Shankar Kulshreshtha, Adv.
Mr. Suraj Pal Singh Mina, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Nagar, Adv.
Mr. Shivom Garg, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Miscellaneous application is allowed in terms of
the reportable signed order, which is placed on file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)