The Supreme Court has held that advanced age and a near forty-year delay at the appellate stage cannot dilute the mandatory life sentence for murder, upholding the conviction of two men in their late seventies for a 1984 killing in Barabanki.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed a special leave petition filed by two men convicted of a 1984 murder in Uttar Pradesh, ruling that the mandatory life sentence for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be reduced merely because the convicts are now old and their appeal remained pending in the High Court for almost four decades. The Court directed the two petitioners to surrender before the trial court within three weeks [Madan & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh].
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya passed the order on October 26, 2026, affirming the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) judgment of August 6, 2026, which had dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1986.
The case
The petitioners, Madan and Bharat, along with five co-accused, were named in FIR No. 83 of 1984 registered on June 12, 1984 at Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki. By its judgment of February 4, 1986 in Sessions Trial No. 387 of 1984, the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barabanki convicted all seven accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (life imprisonment), Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC (four years’ rigorous imprisonment) and Section 148 IPC (two years’ rigorous imprisonment), with the sentences to run concurrently.
Five of the convicts appealed to the High Court in 1986. The appeal remained pending for about forty years. During that time, co-accused Prabhu and Ram Das died and the appeal abated against them in February 2020, and co-accused Sant Ram died later, with the appeal abating to his extent in January 2026. The Supreme Court was told that five of the seven original convicts had died, leaving the two petitioners as the only survivors. On August 6, 2026, the High Court dismissed the appeal and directed them to surrender.
The prosecution story
According to the prosecution, the deceased, Mahattam Dube, was raising an embankment in his field with his son, Deena Nath (PW-1), when the accused arrived armed with firearms, country-made bombs, lathis and knives. Shots were fired, bombs were thrown, and the complainant was injured while trying to save his father. Near the Ajgana Canal, the deceased was allegedly attacked with lathis and firearms and stabbed. Another son, Krishna Kumar (PW-2), also witnessed the assault. The post-mortem recorded 23 injuries on the body, and the complainant was found with 14 firearm injuries.
Arguments for the convicts
Counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav, argued that no independent witness was examined although the incident took place in public view, that the two eyewitnesses were sons of the deceased and therefore interested witnesses, that no weapons were recovered, and that no specific role was attributed to the petitioners. As a last plea, he urged leniency on sentence since the petitioners are in their late seventies and suffer from ailments.
What the Court said
The Bench found the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 fully corroborated by the medical evidence and described the two as witnesses of sterling worth. It held that reliable eyewitness testimony needs no corroboration through recovery, and noted that in an attack of this kind the chance of an independent witness coming forward would be negligible.
On the argument that no individual role was attributed, the Court held that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly and launched an indiscriminate assault in furtherance of its common object, so the prosecution was not required to prove each accused’s individual role:
“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.”
On old age and delay
Rejecting the plea for leniency, the Court pointed out that the trial ended within two years, and that the delay arose only at the appellate stage:
“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 Court, however, left it open to the State of Uttar Pradesh to consider any remission plea from the petitioners, if applicable, in accordance with law at the appropriate stage.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Removes 20-Year Remission Bar Added In Convicts’ Own Appeals
The directions
Finding no manifest illegality, legal infirmity or perversity in the judgments of the courts below, the Court dismissed the special leave petition and affirmed the convictions and sentences. As the petitioners were on bail, their bail bonds were cancelled and they were directed to surrender before the trial court within three weeks, failing which the trial court is to take steps to secure their arrest and commit them to prison.
Why the order matters
The order restates two settled positions. First, where eyewitness testimony is credible and matches the medical evidence, the absence of independent witnesses or weapon recovery does not weaken the prosecution case, and members of an armed unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC without proof of each person’s individual role.
Second, a statutory minimum cannot be bypassed on grounds of sympathy. Life imprisonment is the minimum punishment for murder, so neither old age nor a long-pending appeal permits a court to impose less. The relief the Court pointed to lies elsewhere, in the executive power of remission, which the State may consider under its policy. The case is also a stark reminder of the cost of appellate delay: an appeal filed in 1986 was decided in 2026, by which time five of the seven convicts had died.
Case Title: Madan & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 20544 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
Impugned Judgment: Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1986, dated August 6, 2026
For Petitioners: Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav with Advocates Anjale Kumari, Taiyyab Khan Salmani, P Murugesan, Pooja Shilpkar and Aditya Yadav; AOR Sanjeev Malhotra