The Supreme Court modified the sentence of a man convicted in a 1998 murder case from Gujarat, directing his release after noting that he had already spent more than 23 years in prison. While the Court upheld his conviction for murder, it reduced the punishment from life imprisonment to the period already undergone.
A Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed the order in Munna Moyuddin Shaikh v. State of Gujarat.
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged a 2002 judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which had affirmed the conviction and life sentence awarded by the trial court in a murder case arising out of Sessions Case No. 33 of 1998.
According to the prosecution, the accused attacked the deceased with a knife, causing fatal injuries to the torso and abdomen. The trial court had relied on the testimony of three eyewitnesses along with medical evidence and recovery of the weapon.
Out of four accused persons who faced trial, only Munna Moyuddin Shaikh was convicted, while the remaining accused were acquitted.
The Gujarat High Court later upheld the conviction, finding the eyewitness accounts reliable and supported by medical evidence.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court said it was not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the conviction.
However, the Bench considered the appellant’s submission that he had already undergone 23 years, 6 months and 3 days of imprisonment without remission.
Referring to earlier Constitution Bench rulings, the Court reiterated that life imprisonment ordinarily means imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life, subject to remission powers under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Bench also relied on earlier Supreme Court decisions holding that constitutional courts can modify a life sentence into a fixed-term sentence exceeding 14 years.
“The underlying ratio of the above quoted judgments is that when a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed, Section 53 read with Section 45 of the IPC would convey the meaning that it is till the natural life,” the Bench observed.
The Court further noted that the incident dated back to 1998 and that the appellant was around 21 years old at the time of the offence.
Decision
While maintaining the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the Supreme Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.
The Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case.
The criminal appeal was partly allowed.
Case Details
Case Title: Munna Moyuddin Shaikh v. State of Gujarat
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2686 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 35717 of 2025)
Judges: Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Decision Date: May 26, 2026
