Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal noted that 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 sense as in the case of other convicts.

• The Apex Court gave the observation in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa.

Background

• The detenu was sentenced to imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) relating to a murder.
• The conviction and punishment were confirmed by the High Court on appeal and the same has attained finality.
• 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 immediately following the conviction for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the detenu was also convicted for the offence of kidnapping.
• On 14th August 2022, the Government of Andhra Pradesh remitted his sentence.
  • However, he was not released from jail on the ground that his sentence for the offence of kidnapping should start running from the date of grant of remission in the first case.
• The court dismissed the appeal while stating that 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.

Court’s Observation

• The Court observed that Section 427 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), does not deal with the case of an escaped convict, but it provides enough room for finding out how a sentence imposed on a subsequent conviction, in respect of a life convict, should be handled.

Procedure Prescribed Under Section 427, CrPC

• The provision invokes 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.
• The court under this provision has the power to direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.
• Sub-section 2 of this Section states that 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.