He served 30 years for a murder spree. Now the law says his time doesn't count.

He fired an AK-47, killed three, and was sentenced to death. But after 30 years in prison, the Supreme Court just told the state to reconsider his release.

Rajan, a Sri Lankan refugee, had spent more than three decades behind bars. He had been convicted for a crime spree that left three people dead and four wounded. The High Court had already commuted his death sentences to life imprisonment. He had served his fixed-term sentences. And one of the laws he was convicted under had been struck down by the Supreme Court itself. Yet the state kept saying no.

The question before the Supreme Court was narrow but brutal: could a man who had already served every sentence that still existed in law be kept in prison because of sentences that no longer existed?

July 27, 1988 — the AK-47 in Thanipadi

That day, a police station in Thanipadi, Tamil Nadu, registered an FIR (a written complaint that starts a police investigation). Rajan, along with others, had allegedly committed dacoity (armed robbery by a group), killed three people, and injured four more. The weapon: an AK-47 machine gun. They had been trying to escape.

The trial took nearly two decades. In January 2007, the District and Sessions Judge in Thiruvannamalai convicted Rajan. He was sentenced to death for three counts of murder under Section 302 IPC, life imprisonment for four counts of attempted murder under Section 307 IPC, and fixed-term sentences for dacoity under Section 395 IPC and for offences under the Arms Act.

Rajan appealed. In February 2008, the Madras High Court upheld his conviction but converted the death sentences to life imprisonment. He was now serving multiple life sentences, plus the term sentences, all running concurrently (served at the same time).

The first rejection — and then silence

In 2010, Rajan applied for premature release. An advisory board considered his case and recommended against it. The Tamil Nadu government agreed and formally rejected his application in June 2010.

Eight years passed. Rajan remained in prison. Then, in February 2018, he made a second representation. This time, he had a new argument: the Supreme Court had recently struck down Section 27(3) of the Arms Act (the provision under which he was convicted for using the AK-47) as unconstitutional in a case called State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh. That conviction, he argued, no longer existed in law. His term sentences for the other Arms Act offences and for dacoity had already been fully served. What remained were only the life sentences for murder and attempted murder — and he had already spent over 30 years in prison.

The state did not respond.

The state's argument — and Rajan's counter

Rajan approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution (the right to approach the Supreme Court when fundamental rights are violated). He asked for two things: either order his release, or direct the state to actually consider his representation instead of ignoring it.

The state argued that Rajan's case had already been rejected in 2010. Nothing had changed. The multiple life sentences meant he could not be released without the Central Government's approval. And the gravity of the crime — three murders with an automatic weapon — justified keeping him inside.

Rajan's lawyers countered that the legal landscape had fundamentally shifted. The conviction under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act was void because the provision itself had been declared unconstitutional. The term sentences under other provisions had been completed years ago. Only the life sentences remained, and the state — not the Centre — was the appropriate authority to consider remission (early release) for offences under the Indian Penal Code.

What the Supreme Court ruled

The bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi delivered its judgment on April 25, 2019. The reasoning was precise, but its effect was clear: the state could not keep ignoring Rajan's representation.

First, the court held that when a statutory provision under which a conviction was recorded has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, that conviction and sentence "cannot be reckoned in law for any purpose" — including consideration for premature release. Rajan's conviction under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act was legally dead.

Second, applying its own Constitution Bench judgment in Muthuramalingam v. State, the court ruled that when multiple sentences for different offences at one trial are directed to run concurrently, and the term sentences have been fully served, those completed offences cannot be counted when considering premature release. Only the surviving life sentences matter.

Third, following Union of India v. Sriharan, the court held that when the surviving sentences relate only to offences under the Indian Penal Code — and convictions under central statutes like the Arms Act have either been invalidated or completed — the state government is the "appropriate government" under Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC (the provisions that allow the government to suspend, remit, or commute sentences). Central Government consultation was unnecessary.

The court did not order Rajan's release. It could not — the power to grant remission belongs to the executive, not the judiciary. But it directed the Tamil Nadu government to process Rajan's February 2018 representation and take it to a logical end within four months, without being influenced by the earlier rejection in 2010.

The sentences that vanished

What made this case unusual was the arithmetic of punishment. Rajan had been sentenced to death, then life, then fixed terms — all for the same sequence of events. Over 30 years, some of those sentences had been served, some had been commuted, and one had simply ceased to exist when the law behind it was struck down.

The court's direction did not guarantee Rajan's release. The state could still say no. But it could no longer say nothing. And it could no longer count sentences that the law itself had erased.

THE PLAY: When a convict has served all term sentences and the provision under which one conviction was recorded has been declared unconstitutional, the state must consider premature release based only on the surviving life sentences — and without requiring Central Government approval if only IPC offences remain.

The state now had four months to decide. Rajan had already served thirty years. The AK-47 had been silent for a long time.