Advanced Age, Delay In Appeal Cannot Reduce Mandatory Life Sentence For Murder: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that advanced age and the passage of time during appellate proceedings cannot be grounds for reducing a life sentence imposed for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) [Section 103(1), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)], as the provision prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for life.

A Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya dismissed a plea by two convicts, Madan and Bharat, seeking leniency on the ground that they were in their late seventies and suffering from various medical ailments. Court held that their age and the delay in disposal of their appeal could not override the statutory minimum sentence.

The incident took place in 1984, and the trial was concluded within two years. However, the criminal appeal remained pending before the high court for almost 40 years.

"In any event, an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, carries a mandatory statutory minimum sentence of imprisonment for life. Hence, the petitioners, citing their old age, cannot claim any benefit on the aspect of sentence merely because significant time has elapsed since the date of incident," the Bench said.

While upholding their conviction and sentence, Court clarified that it would be open to the State of Uttar Pradesh to consider any application for remission submitted by the petitioners, if permissible under law, at the appropriate stage.

The petitioners, along with five co-accused, were initially arraigned in an FIR registered on June 12, 1984, at Police Station Dewa, Barabanki, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC [Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 103(1) of the BNS, respectively].

Following the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against them for offences under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, and 307 read with 149 of the IPC [Sections 191(3), 103(1) read with 190, and 109(1) read with 190 of the BNS, respectively].

After trial, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barabanki, convicted the petitioners and five co-accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment by a judgment dated February 4, 1986.

Five of the convicted accused, including the petitioners, preferred a criminal appeal before the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench.

During the pendency of the appeal, co-accused Prabhu and Ram Das passed away, following which the appeal against them abated on February 19, 2020. Subsequently, another co-accused, Sant Ram, also passed away, and the appeal against him abated on January 7, 2026.

Court was informed that five of the seven convicted accused had died during the proceedings, leaving only Madan and Bharat as the surviving appellants.

On August 6, 2026, the high court dismissed their criminal appeal, upheld their conviction and sentences, and directed them to surrender forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.

Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition.

Their counsel argued that the conviction was unjustified and unsustainable as the prosecution had not examined any independent witnesses, despite the incident having taken place in public view.

It was further argued that no weapons were recovered during the investigation and, therefore, the testimony of the closely related eyewitnesses remained uncorroborated. The counsel also contended that no specific role had been assigned to the petitioners.

Rejecting these submissions, Court noted that the deceased, Mahattam Dube, was working in his field and raising an embankment (mend) alongside his son, Deena Nath (PW-1), when the accused persons arrived armed with country-made guns, bombs, lathis and knives and attacked him, resulting in his death.

Court noted that the doctor who conducted the postmortem had found 23 injuries on the deceased's body, including firearm injuries, contusions, incised wounds and stab injuries.

Similarly, the complainant was found to have sustained 14 firearm injuries when medically examined.

"Hence, it is apparent that the evidence of the eye-witnesses is thoroughly corroborated by the medical evidence. We have gone through the depositions of Deena Nath (PW-1) and Krishna Kumar (PW-2) placed on record along with the special leave petition and find them to be witnesses of sterling worth," the Bench said.

Court observed that the law was well settled that reliable direct testimony of an eyewitness does not require corroboration through recovery of weapons or other such evidence.

It further noted that in an incident involving an armed group attacking the victims in a brutal manner, the possibility of independent witnesses coming forward to testify against the accused would be negligible.

Court, therefore, found no merit in the argument that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable for want of independent corroboration or recovery of weapons.

Court noted that there was ample evidence to establish that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly, armed themselves with multiple weapons and launched an indiscriminate attack on the deceased and the complainant upon reaching the place of occurrence.

It held that the prosecution was not required to establish the individual role of each accused to hold them guilty, as they had acted in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly.

"Thus, there was no burden upon the prosecution to lead evidence about the individual role of each accused so as to hold them guilty of the charges. The accused persons, who were armed tooth and nail, proceeded to the place of occurrence in form of an unlawful assembly and launched a brutal assault in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly. Therefore, the trial Court was fully justified in invoking Section 149 of the IPC to hold them vicariously liable for the offences in question," the Bench said.

Dismissing the petition as devoid of merit, Court held that the judgments of the courts below did not suffer from any manifest illegality, legal infirmity or perversity warranting its interference.

Court directed the petitioners to surrender before the trial court within three weeks to serve the remaining period of their sentence. In case of non-compliance, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to take appropriate steps to secure their arrest and commit them to prison.

Case Title: Madan & Anr Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 

Bench: Justices Sandeep Mehta and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya 

Date of Judgment: October 20, 2026