Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 475
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12497 of 2024)
KARAN SINGH …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has approached this Court by way of
th
present appeal challenging the order dated 9 May 2024
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No. 944 of 2023
(O&M), thereby dismissing the revision petition filed by the
present appellant.
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.04.09
17:13:52 IST
Reason:
as under:
th
3.1 In an FIR being No.2 of 2005 dated 7 January 2005
1
registered at Police Station Sadar, Dadri, the appellant was
implicated for an offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
“IPC”).
3.2 Upon appreciation of the evidence at the conclusion of
the trial, the appellant came to be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC vide judgment and order
th
dated 8 February 2007 in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2005.
3.3 The said conviction and sentence was affirmed by the
th
High Court vide its judgment and order dated 6 February
2009.
3.4 While the appellant was undergoing the sentence of life
imprisonment, he was released on parole vide order dated
st
21 April 2010 for a period of six weeks. However, since the
appellant did not surrender within the specified period, he
th
came to be arrested on 30 June 2010.
3.5 Since the appellant had not surrendered within the
th
prescribed period, an FIR being No.224 dated 17 June 2010
came to be registered against the appellant for the offences
punishable under Section 8/9 of the Haryana Good Conduct
Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
2
to as “Prisoners Act, 1988”).
3.6 The appellant came to be convicted for the said offence
th
vide judgment and order dated 11/13 November 2010 and
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.
3.7 The appeal challenging the same came to be dismissed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide
th
order dated 25 November 2013.
3.8 Being aggrieved thereby, the Revision Petition was
preferred by the appellant before the High Court.
3.9 By the impugned judgment and order, the Revision
Petition has also been dismissed.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
both the parties.
5. Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant submits that insofar as the main
offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the appellant
th
has already been granted remission vide order dated 26
September 2024, however, the appellant could not avail the
benefit of the same on account of the sentence awarded to
him under the Prisoners Act, 1988. He submits that the
sentence awarded under the Prisoners Act, 1988 was to run
3
consequently and would commence after he had served out
his sentence in the main offence. He submits that when an
accused is sentenced to life imprisonment, all other
sentences are required to be run concurrently and it cannot
be in addition to the life sentence.
6. We do not propose to go into the wider issue raised by
Shri Malhotra, inasmuch as we find that the appeal deserves
to be allowed on other grounds.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
vehemently opposes the appeal. She submits that now the
st
Prisoners Act, 1988 has been amended with effect from 1
October 2012, and it prescribes for a minimum sentence of
two years, as such the appeal is without merits.
8. Section 9 of the Prisoners Act, 1988, reads as follows:
“ 9. (1) Any prisoner who is liable to be arrested
under sub-section(2) of section 8, shall be
punishable with imprisonment of either description
which may extend to three years with fine.
(2) An offence punishable under sub-section(1)
shall be deemed to be cognizable and non-bailable.
Explanation:- The punishment in this section is in
addition to the punishment awarded to the prisoner
for the offence for which he was convicted”
9. Section 6 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners
(Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2012 reads thus:
4
“ 6. In sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Principal
Act, for the words “three years and with fine”, the
words “three years but shall not be less than two
years” shall be substituted.”
10. It could thus be seen that while Section 9 of the
Prisoners Act, 1988 provides for a maximum sentence of
three years, it does not prescribe a minimum sentence for the
offence punishable under it.
11. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the
State with regard to the amendment to Section 9 of the
Prisoners Act, 1988 is concerned, it is pertinent to note that
st
the amendment came into effect on 1 October 2012,
th
whereas the offence was committed on 17 June 2010 and
th
the order of sentence was issued on 11/13 November 2010.
As such, the said amendment would not be applicable in the
facts of the present case.
12. In the present case, it can be seen that it is not the case
of the respondent-State that the appellant was habitually not
reporting to prison within the prescribed time. It appears
that the offence for which the appellant was convicted under
the Prisoners Act, 1988 was the first such instance.
13. The appellant has already been granted remission for
the main offence under Section 302 IPC. However, following
5
the date of remission, the appellant has undergone an
additional incarceration of approximately 10 months.
14. In the facts of the case, we therefore find that the
sentence already undergone would subserve the ends of
justice for the offence punishable under the Prisoners Act,
1988.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
th
judgment and order dated 9 May 2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No. 944 of 2023 is quashed
and set aside.
16. Since the appellant has already been granted remission
for the main offence under Section 302 IPC, he is directed to
be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
17. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
.............................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 08, 2025.
6
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 475
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12497 of 2024)
KARAN SINGH …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has approached this Court by way of
th
present appeal challenging the order dated 9 May 2024
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No. 944 of 2023
(O&M), thereby dismissing the revision petition filed by the
present appellant.
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.04.09
17:13:52 IST
Reason:
as under:
th
3.1 In an FIR being No.2 of 2005 dated 7 January 2005
1
registered at Police Station Sadar, Dadri, the appellant was
implicated for an offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
“IPC”).
3.2 Upon appreciation of the evidence at the conclusion of
the trial, the appellant came to be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC vide judgment and order
th
dated 8 February 2007 in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2005.
3.3 The said conviction and sentence was affirmed by the
th
High Court vide its judgment and order dated 6 February
2009.
3.4 While the appellant was undergoing the sentence of life
imprisonment, he was released on parole vide order dated
st
21 April 2010 for a period of six weeks. However, since the
appellant did not surrender within the specified period, he
th
came to be arrested on 30 June 2010.
3.5 Since the appellant had not surrendered within the
th
prescribed period, an FIR being No.224 dated 17 June 2010
came to be registered against the appellant for the offences
punishable under Section 8/9 of the Haryana Good Conduct
Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
2
to as “Prisoners Act, 1988”).
3.6 The appellant came to be convicted for the said offence
th
vide judgment and order dated 11/13 November 2010 and
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.
3.7 The appeal challenging the same came to be dismissed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide
th
order dated 25 November 2013.
3.8 Being aggrieved thereby, the Revision Petition was
preferred by the appellant before the High Court.
3.9 By the impugned judgment and order, the Revision
Petition has also been dismissed.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
both the parties.
5. Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant submits that insofar as the main
offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the appellant
th
has already been granted remission vide order dated 26
September 2024, however, the appellant could not avail the
benefit of the same on account of the sentence awarded to
him under the Prisoners Act, 1988. He submits that the
sentence awarded under the Prisoners Act, 1988 was to run
3
consequently and would commence after he had served out
his sentence in the main offence. He submits that when an
accused is sentenced to life imprisonment, all other
sentences are required to be run concurrently and it cannot
be in addition to the life sentence.
6. We do not propose to go into the wider issue raised by
Shri Malhotra, inasmuch as we find that the appeal deserves
to be allowed on other grounds.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
vehemently opposes the appeal. She submits that now the
st
Prisoners Act, 1988 has been amended with effect from 1
October 2012, and it prescribes for a minimum sentence of
two years, as such the appeal is without merits.
8. Section 9 of the Prisoners Act, 1988, reads as follows:
“ 9. (1) Any prisoner who is liable to be arrested
under sub-section(2) of section 8, shall be
punishable with imprisonment of either description
which may extend to three years with fine.
(2) An offence punishable under sub-section(1)
shall be deemed to be cognizable and non-bailable.
Explanation:- The punishment in this section is in
addition to the punishment awarded to the prisoner
for the offence for which he was convicted”
9. Section 6 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners
(Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2012 reads thus:
4
“ 6. In sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Principal
Act, for the words “three years and with fine”, the
words “three years but shall not be less than two
years” shall be substituted.”
10. It could thus be seen that while Section 9 of the
Prisoners Act, 1988 provides for a maximum sentence of
three years, it does not prescribe a minimum sentence for the
offence punishable under it.
11. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the
State with regard to the amendment to Section 9 of the
Prisoners Act, 1988 is concerned, it is pertinent to note that
st
the amendment came into effect on 1 October 2012,
th
whereas the offence was committed on 17 June 2010 and
th
the order of sentence was issued on 11/13 November 2010.
As such, the said amendment would not be applicable in the
facts of the present case.
12. In the present case, it can be seen that it is not the case
of the respondent-State that the appellant was habitually not
reporting to prison within the prescribed time. It appears
that the offence for which the appellant was convicted under
the Prisoners Act, 1988 was the first such instance.
13. The appellant has already been granted remission for
the main offence under Section 302 IPC. However, following
5
the date of remission, the appellant has undergone an
additional incarceration of approximately 10 months.
14. In the facts of the case, we therefore find that the
sentence already undergone would subserve the ends of
justice for the offence punishable under the Prisoners Act,
1988.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
th
judgment and order dated 9 May 2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No. 944 of 2023 is quashed
and set aside.
16. Since the appellant has already been granted remission
for the main offence under Section 302 IPC, he is directed to
be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
17. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
.............................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 08, 2025.
6