Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 8-9 OF 2010
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.6599-6600/2009)
RANJIT SINGH Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for
life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.),
10 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C.
and 10 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 333
I.P.C. While sentencing the appellant, the Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, did not grant him benefit of
set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, on the basis of the judgment of this Court in
Kartar Singh vs. State of Haryana, [AIR 1982 SC 1439 =
1982 (3) SCC 1].
-2-
A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of
Bhagirath vs. Delhi Administration, [1985 (2) SCC 580],
has specifically overruled Kartar Singh's judgment
(supra), the relevant paragraph of which reads as under:
“We have considered with great care the
reasoning upon which the decision in Kartar
Singh (1982 3 SCC 1) proceeds. With respect,
we are unable to agree with the decision. We
have already discussed why imprisonment for
life is imprisonment for a term, within the
meaning of section 428. We would like to add
that we find it difficult to agree that the
expressions 'imprisonment for life' and
'imprisonment for a term' are used either in
the Penal Code or in the Criminal Procedure
Code in contradistinction with each other.
Sections 304, 305, 307 and 394 of the Penal
Code undoutedly provide that persons guilty of
the respective offences, shall be punished
with imprisonment for life or with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding a
certain number of years. But, that is the only
manner in which the Legislature could have
expressed its intention that persons who are
guilty of those offences shall be punished
with either of the sentences mentioned in the
respective sections. The circumstances on
which the learned Judges have placed reliance
in Kartar Singh, do not afford any evidence,
intrinsic or otherwise, of the use of the two
expressions in contradistinction with each
other. Two or more expressions are often used
in the same section in order to exhaust the
alternatives which are available to the
Legislature. That does not mean that there is,
necessarily, an antithesis between those
expressions.”
-3-
In our considered view, the appellant is entitled
to the benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
The appeals are partly allowed and disposed of in
the above terms.
.....................J
(DALVEER BHANDARI)
.....................J
(A.K. PATNAIK)
New Delhi;
January 4, 2010.