Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2023
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 2820/2023)
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
& ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VIJAYANAGARAM CHINNA REDDAPPA RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The State of Andhra Pradesh has come up with the above appeal,
challenging an order of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the
Superintendent of the Central Prison, Kadapa to set at liberty, a
convict by name P. Reddy Bhaskar (Convict No.5357).
We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the State of
Andhra Pradesh and Mr. Seshadri Naidu, the learned senior counsel
for the respondent.
Signature Not Verified
The detenu was prosecuted in Sessions Case No.139/2006 for an
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2023.05.01
09:53:28 IST
Reason:
offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”)
1
relating to a murder that took place on 27.05.2001. By a judgment
dated 19.12.2006, the detenu was convicted and sentenced to life
imprisonment. The conviction and punishment were confirmed by the
High Court on appeal and the same has attained finality.
It appears that the detenu escaped from custody twice during his
incarceration, but was apprehended later. It is the case of the State
that the detenu enjoyed self-attained freedom for about two years
pursuant to the first escape and for about three months pursuant to
the second escape.
It appears that immediately following the conviction for the
offence under Section 302 IPC, the detenu was also convicted in
another case in Case No.260/2006 for an offence of kidnapping under
Section 365 IPC. In this case, the detenu was convicted and imposed
simple imprisonment for one year.
By G.O.Ms. No.121 dated 14.08.2022, the Government of Andhra
Pradesh granted special remission to 175 life convicts on the occasion
of the Independence Day. Without giving him any opportunity for a
third escape, the Government set him at liberty under the said
Government order on 15.08.2022.
Even after the issue of the Government order, the detenu was not
released from jail on the ground that the sentence of imprisonment
2
awarded in Case No.260/2006 should start running from the date of
grant of remission in the first case. The detenu’s brother-in-law
therefore approached the High Court by way of a writ of Habeas
Corpus contending that the continued detention of the detenu after
the grant of remission was illegal. The High Court accepted the
contention and allowed the writ petition. It is against the said order
that State has come up with the above appeal.
What is in question in this appeal is an interplay between
Sections 426 and 427 Cr.P.C. These sections read as follows:
“426. Sentence on escaped convict when to take effect.-(1)
When a sentence of death, imprisonment for life or fine is
passed under this Code on an escaped convict, such sentence
shall, subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, take
effect immediately.
(2) When a sentence of imprisonment for a term is passed
under this Code on an escaped convict,-
(a) if such sentence is severer in kind than the sentence
which such convict was undergoing when he escaped, the
new sentence shall take effect immediately;
(b) if such sentence is not severer in kind than the sentence
which such convict was undergoing when he escaped, the
new sentence shall take effect after he has suffered
imprisonment for a further period equal to that which, at the
time of his escape, remained unexpired of his former
sentence.
(3) For the purposes of sub-section (2), a sentence of rigorous
imprisonment shall be deemed to be severer in kind than a
sentence of simple imprisonment.
427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another
offence.-(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of
imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to
imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or
imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the
imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced,
3
unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall
run concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to
imprison- ment by an order under section 122 in default of
furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence,
sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to
the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence
immediately.
(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of
imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction
to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the
subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such
previous sentence.”
At the outset, we must remember that we are dealing with the
case of an escaped convict. Therefore, the case of the detenu would
obviously be covered by Section 426(2)(b), which deals with case of an
escaped convict, already serving a sentence severer in kind, but
imposed with a less severe sentence in respect of a subsequent
conviction. Section 426(2)(b) Cr.P.C. states that insofar as an escaped
convict is concerned, the sentence imposed in the second or
subsequent conviction shall take effect only after the escaped convict
has suffered imprisonment for a further period equal to that which at
the time of escape remained unexpired of his former sentence.
But insofar as a life convict is concerned, in law, no part of the
sentence remains unexpired. The remission granted by the
Government to a life convict, cannot be taken to mean that there is
some portion of the life sentence that remains unexpired in the same
4
sense as in the case of other convicts. A life sentence is a sentence for
life. What remains unexpired of such a sentence is known only to God
(if you believe) and to the Government, if there is a policy of remission.
Therefore, Section 426(2)(b) cannot be taken to have included within
its fold, the case of a life convict, since in the case of life convict no
portion of the sentence remains unexpired, in the technical sense.
If Section 426(2)(b) Cr.P.C. is out of the picture, then what
remains is Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. Under Section 427(2) Cr.P.C., the
subsequent sentence should run concurrently along with a previous
sentence, if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment
for life, is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a
term or imprisonment for life.
Therefore, while Section 426 covers the case of an escaped
convict, clause (b) of sub-section (2) thereof creates a conundrum in
respect of life convicts. But Section 427, though does not deal with
the case of an escaped convict, provides enough room for finding out
how a sentence imposed on a subsequent conviction, in respect of a
life convict, should be handled.
Therefore, the application of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. by the High
Court to the case on hand, is perfectly in order and the appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
5
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The detenu shall be set at
liberty forthwith.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………........................J.
(V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN)
……………………........................J.
(PANKAJ MITHAL )
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 28, 2023
6
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.15 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2820/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-12-2022
in WP No. 36742/2022 passed by the High Court Of Andhra Pradesh At
Amravati)
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
VIJAYANAGARAM CHINNA REDDAPPA Respondent(s)
Date : 28-04-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR
Mr. K V Girish Chowdary, Adv.
Mr. T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv.
Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pai Amit, AOR
Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv.
Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv.
Ms. Nandita K. Nair, Adv.
Ms. Pratishtha C.b., Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is dismissed and the detenu shall be set at
liberty forthwith in terms of the signed reportable order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(SIGNED REPORTABLE ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)
7