Top court asks MP to pay ₹25 lakh to man jailed beyond term
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan also directed the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority to conduct a comprehensive survey across all prisons in the state to ensure that no other prisoner continues to remain behind bars despite having either completed their sentence or been granted bail.
The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the state of Madhya Pradesh to pay ₹25 lakh as compensation to a man, who languished in jail for more than four years and seven months beyond his lawful sentence.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan also directed the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority to conduct a comprehensive survey across all prisons in the state to ensure that no other prisoner continues to remain behind bars despite having either completed their sentence or been granted bail.
The bench, which had earlier called prolonged incarceration of Sohan Singh — a rape convict — “quite shocking,” came down heavily on the state for its systemic failure. The bench noted that such over-incarceration amounts to a grave violation of fundamental rights and cannot be condoned.
The case had initially come to the court’s attention earlier this year, when Singh petitioned against his prolonged imprisonment despite a 2017 order of the Madhya Pradesh high court reducing his life sentence to seven years.
The top court had then remarked that Singh appeared to have served nearly eight years more than his lawful term and demanded an explanation from the state. On Monday, however, the state’s counsel, senior advocate Nachiketa Joshi, clarified that Singh had been on bail for some time during the period, and the extra incarceration amounted to approximately 4.7 years.
{{/usCountry}}The top court had then remarked that Singh appeared to have served nearly eight years more than his lawful term and demanded an explanation from the state. On Monday, however, the state’s counsel, senior advocate Nachiketa Joshi, clarified that Singh had been on bail for some time during the period, and the extra incarceration amounted to approximately 4.7 years.
{{/usCountry}}Representing Singh, advocate Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki confirmed the figures and pressed for accountability. The court expressed displeasure at the “misleading affidavits” earlier filed by the state in the case, which had initially overstated the duration of excess incarceration.
{{/usCountry}}Representing Singh, advocate Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki confirmed the figures and pressed for accountability. The court expressed displeasure at the “misleading affidavits” earlier filed by the state in the case, which had initially overstated the duration of excess incarceration.
{{/usCountry}}Singh’s ordeal traces back two decades. Tried by a sessions court in Khurai, district Sagar, he was convicted in July 2005 for rape, house trespass and criminal intimidation under Sections 376(1), 450 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, on appeal, the Madhya Pradesh high court in October 2017 noted infirmities in the prosecution’s case, including delay in lodging the FIR and absence of corroborative medical evidence, and reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the conviction.
{{/usCountry}}Singh’s ordeal traces back two decades. Tried by a sessions court in Khurai, district Sagar, he was convicted in July 2005 for rape, house trespass and criminal intimidation under Sections 376(1), 450 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, on appeal, the Madhya Pradesh high court in October 2017 noted infirmities in the prosecution’s case, including delay in lodging the FIR and absence of corroborative medical evidence, and reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the conviction.
{{/usCountry}}Despite the clear modification of sentence, Singh remained in jail until June 6, 2025 — nearly eight years after the high court’s order and well beyond the maximum punishment he could have lawfully served. It was only after he approached the Supreme Court that the matter came to light.
As reported first by HT on August 28, the Supreme Court had asked the Madhya Pradesh government to identify how such a miscarriage of justice was allowed to happen, and to fix accountability.
“The facts of this case are quite shocking…We want the state to offer an appropriate explanation in this regard. We grant two weeks’ time to the state to file an appropriate reply to the aforesaid,” the August 22 order had stated. “We would like to know how such a serious lapse occurred and why the petitioner remained in jail for more than seven years even after undergoing the entire sentence of seven years,” it had added.
