Can a person be kept in jail indefinitely for murder, asks HC

It was hearing a plea by Tandoor convict Sushil Kumar Sharma

Published - December 19, 2018 02:01 am IST - New Delhi

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked whether a person can be allowed to be kept in jail indefinitely for the offence of murder even if he has already served the sentence. The court raised the query while hearing a plea by former youth Congress leader Sushil Kumar Sharma, serving life term in the 1995 murder of his wife Naina Sahni, seeking release after having undergone 29 years of incarceration.

A Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal said it was concerned with the human rights of the prisoner and termed the issue as “very serious”. “He is incarcerated for over 25 years, including remission. A murder itself is brutal. He has already served the sentence. Does it not infringe upon his human rights, which are inalienable rights? The Sentence Review Board [SRB] cannot say no this murder was brutal, so we will not release him,” the Bench said.

Referring to a report filed by the SRB, the Bench noted that the possibility of Sharma committing a similar offence again has been ruled out and the authorities do not see him as menace to society. “Then why should we keep him in jail indefinitely,” it asked.

The court had earlier issued notice to the Delhi government and sought its stand on Sharma’s habeas corpus plea seeking release from custody on the grounds that he has been jailed for 29 years, including the period of remission, and his continued incarceration was illegal.

Sharma, who is in prison since 1995, has contended that he has already undergone the maximum prescribed sentence as mandated under the SRB guidelines.

Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing for Sharma, said guidelines on premature release state that life convicts sentenced for a single offence are to be released after completion of 20 years of incarceration and those who had committed heinous crimes are to be granted the relief after 25 years.

Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra said the L-G, who is the competent authority to decide the premature release of convicts, had accepted the SRB recommendations not to release Sharma and all records were put before him.

The Secretary of Law and Justice Department, who was earlier asked to appear in court, said the guidelines on premature release were not a binding on them and there was discrimination done with Sharma.

The court, which listed the matter for further arguments on Wednesday, directed the State to produce original records on Sharma’s application to the SRB for premature release and the reasons for rejecting it.

Now 56, Sharma had shot dead his wife in 1995 over her alleged relationship with a male friend. He then chopped her body into pieces and attempted to burn it in a restaurant oven.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.