Supreme Court Orders ₹25 Lakhs Compensation for Convict Held 4.7 Extra Years in Jail

 

The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh government to pay ₹25 lakh in compensation to a man who remained incarcerated for over 4.7 years beyond his lawful sentence. The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan sharply criticized the state for its failure that led to such prolonged detention.

The case involved a convict initially sentenced in 2004 by a sessions court under heinous charges, including a rape offence punishable under Section 376(1) and other offences. His sentence included life imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reduced his sentence in 2007 to seven years. Despite serving the reduced term long ago, he remained behind bars until June of the current year—resulting in more than eight additional years of wrongful incarceration.

When the Supreme Court issued notice to the state, it noted the initial delay in release. At that stage, it was reckoned that the convict had suffered about eight years of over-incarceration. However, the state’s counsel later clarified that the convict had spent some time out on bail, resulting in the actual period of wrongful imprisonment being recalculated to around 4.7 years. The bench, guided by this revised figure, granted compensation commensurate with the period of excess confinement.

The Court criticized the state’s conduct and flagged submission of misleading affidavits by its counsel. It underscored that justice demands accountability and that wrongful detention of such magnitude must be rectified appropriately. The ₹25 lakh award represents a measure of redress for the years the man spent unnecessarily deprived of his freedom.

Additionally, the Court directed the Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority to initiate action to identify other individuals who may have endured similar unjust and prolonged incarceration. This directive aims to ensure that others affected by administrative lapses or prosecutorial inertia may also receive timely relief and justice.

The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the principle that the state bears a constitutional obligation not merely to convict lawfully but also to ensure timely release. Prolonged confinement after sentence expiry is a grave violation of personal liberty and due process, and is not tolerable within the framework of justice.

In delivering this order, the Court reasserted the need for vigilance in tracking sentence periods and prompt action once a sentence concludes. The ₹25 lakh compensation and the directive to the Legal Services Authority serve both as recompense for one individual’s suffering and as a systemic reminder against the recurrence of such egregious lapses in the criminal justice process.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community