Appellant entitled to immediate release upon serving full sentence during pendency of criminal appeal.

The appellant was convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Case No. 140/2010 via judgment dated 26.12.2017.

He was found guilty under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to three years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) with a fine of Rs. 200.

The appellant challenged this conviction by filing the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

During the pendency of the appeal, it was brought to the Court's attention that the appellant had already served 03 years, 06 months, and 05 days in jail, which exceeded the substantive sentence of 03 years awarded by the trial court.

Whether the appellant is entitled to immediate release from custody in light of having already served a period of incarceration exceeding the sentence of three years imposed by the trial court.

The Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding appeals against convictions.

Substantively, the court noted the conviction under Section 395 of the IPC pertaining to dacoity.

The Court relied on the procedural principle illustrated in Suresh Singh and Another v. State of Haryana (2007) 13 SCC 518, where the Supreme Court acknowledged that a special leave petition (or appeal) may become infructuous or require immediate relief if the accused has already undergone the awarded sentence.

The Court evaluated the jail report submitted by the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Raigarh, dated 25.03.2026, which verified that the appellant had served 03 years, 06 months, and 05 days of imprisonment.

Given that the original sentence was for a term of 03 years RI and the fine amount had already been deposited, the Court found that the appellant had completed the entirety of his legal punishment.

By applying the rationale from Suresh Singh, the Court determined that continued detention was unwarranted since the punitive requirement of the trial court's judgment had been satisfied through actual time served.

The Registry was directed to transmit a certified copy of the judgment and the original record to the trial court for necessary information and compliance.

The written instructions from the Jail Superintendent were ordered to be kept on record.