‘Honour’ Killing: Supreme Court Orders Release of Man on Remission After 22 Years
The Supreme Court grants release on remission to convict after nearly 22 years in jail for murder over family prestige issue
The Supreme Court, on October 7, 2025, ordered the immediate release on remission of Anilkumar alias Lapetu Ramshakal Sharma, a man serving a life sentence for murder.
The bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran directed the convict’s forthwith release, noting he had served nearly 22 years in jail and was "just past 18 years" when the crime was committed.
The case involved killing of a man over a love affair with Sharma's sister, which the accused claimed was "spoiling her life," thus framing the act as one to uphold family prestige.
The appellant, Anilkumar, had sought pre-mature release after approximately 20 years of incarceration, petitioning the state government for a remission of his life sentence. A report was subsequently requested from the Additional District Court, Greater Mumbai, the court that originally convicted him. The trial court had handed down a life sentence under Section 302 and seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to be served concurrently.
Based on the opinion of the Additional Sessions Judge, which categorised the crime under Category 4(d) of the 2010 guidelines for premature release, the government, through its Home Department, had directed his release after 24 years. However, the appellant contended that he ought to have been released after 22 years.
Examining the plea, the bench observed, "We have seen the guidelines framed by the government for considering remission. The appellant has been directed to be released after 24 years categorising him as a person who committed a murder jointly with another person, with premeditation".
The appellant argued that his case should instead fall under Clause 3(b) of the government resolution, which covers a murder committed "with premeditation individually or by a gang" arising inter alia out of family prestige.
Court noted that the facts showed the appellant, along with the second accused, launched a premeditated attack on the deceased and his friend because the deceased was in love with the appellant’s sister and "whose life was being spoiled by the love affair". The bench highlighted that the appellate court and the government, in its impugned order, had specifically noticed this motive.
"Hence, 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," the bench held.
Court found that the custody certificate attached to the writ petition showed the appellant had already been in custody for 20 years 7 months and 8 days as of 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 No RLP No.1006/CR621/PRS-3 dated 15.03.2010," the bench stated.
The bench further opined that an additional "three months more in jail would make no difference; neither added solace to the family of the victim nor extra remorse to the accused".
Allowing the appeal, the bench finally ordered, "We hence direct the release of the appellant forthwith, especially noticing the fact that the appellant was just past 18 years on the date of the crime".
Case Title: Anilkumar @ Lapetu Ramshakal Sharma Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors
Judgment Date: October 7, 2025
Bench: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran