JUDGMENT :

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

1. The constitutional courts have often reiterated the principle that those who feel called upon to deprive other persons of their personal liberty in the discharge of what they conceive to be their duty, must strictly and scrupulously observe the forms and rules of law. [Ref: Ram Narayan Singh vs. State of Delhi reported as 1953 AIR 277].

2. Predicated on the above doctrine and in the facts and circumstances of the case as elaborated hereafter, we are of the considered view that, the continued incarceration of the petitioner before us, does not admit of legal justification and lawful sanction.

3. We are, therefore, directing that he be set at liberty forthwith.

4. Sushil Kumar Sharma was tried for offences punishable under Section 302/120-B, read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

5. The Trial Court, by way of judgment and order dated 03.11.2003, was pleased to convict Sushil Kumar Sharma under Sections 302, 120-B, read with Section 201 IPC.

6. Sushil Kumar Sharma was sentenced to capital punishment. The death sentence awarded to him was confirmed by this Court on 19.02.2007.

7. Sushil Kumar Sharma assailed the confirmation of death sentence awarded to him before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the same was commuted by the latter to life sentence vide order dated 08.10.2013 in Crl. A. 693/2007, titled as ‘Sushil Sharma v. The State of NCT of Delhi’.

8. Before we proceed further, it would be profitable, relevant and germane to extract the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the said judgment and order dated 08.10.2013 and we do so as follows:

“83. We must now examine the present case in light of our observations in the preceding paragraphs. The appellant was the State President of the Youth Congress in Delhi. The deceased was a qualified pilot and she was also the State General Secretary of Youth Congress (Girls Wing), Delhi. She was an independent lady, who was capable of taking her own decisions. From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that she was not in touch with people residing outside the four walls of her house. Evidence discloses that even on the date of incident at around 4.00 p.m. she had contacted PW-12 Matloob Karim. She was not a poor illiterate hapless woman. Considering the social status of the deceased, it would be difficult to come to the conclusion that the appellant was in a dominant position qua her. The appellant was deeply in love with the deceased and knowing fully well that the deceased was very close to PW-12 Matloob Karim, he married her hoping that the deceased would settle down with him and lead a happy life. The evidence on record establishes that they were living together and were married but unfortunately, it appears that the deceased was still in touch with PW-12 Matloob Karim. It appears that the appellant was extremely possessive of the deceased. The evidence on record shows that the appellant suspected her fidelity and the murder was result of this possessiveness. We have noted that when the appellant was taken to Lady Hardinge Mortuary and when the dead body was shown to him, he started weeping. It would be difficult, therefore, to say that he was remorseless. The fact that he absconded is undoubtedly a circumstance which will have to be taken against him, but the same, in our considered view, would be more relevant to the issue of culpability of the accused which we have already decided against him rather than the question of what would be the appropriate sentence to be awarded which is presently under consideration. The medical evidence does not establish that the dead body of the deceased was cut. The second post-mortem report states that no opinion could be given as to whether the dead body was cut as dislocation could be due to burning of the dead body. There is no recovery of any