2009 Supreme(SC) 1829

2009(8) Supreme 456
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir & B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Ramraj@ Nanhoo@ Bihnu — Petitioner
versus
State of Chttisgarh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4614 of 2006
Decided on : 10-12-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
By virtue of the non-obstante clause used In Section 433A of Criminal Procedure Code,1973, the minimum term of imprisonment In respect of an offence where death is one of the punishments provided by laws or where a death sentence has been commuted to life sentence, has been prescribed as 14 years.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Prosecution of appellant accused for causing death of his wife by assaulting him with a stick causing severe internal and external injuries and for burying the body of the victim in an attempt to shield himself of offence – Conviction by Trial Court – Appeal – Dismissed by High Court – Special leave petition – High Court noted the fact that there was no direct and ocular evidence in the case, but the fact that the deceased was found dead and the petitioner informed the villagers that she had died of pain ,in her stomach, confirmed the fact that he was with her at the time of her death – Again, the conduct of the petitioner in not reporting the matter to the petitioner and, on the other hand, burying the body of the victim in an attempt to shield himself of the offence, did not enure to the benefit of the petitioner – Had it not been for the insistence of PW–1 such evidence may have gone completely unnoticed – It is only on account of his insistence that the body of the victim was exhumed, and, thereafter, subjected to post mortem examination which, ultimately, revealed the fact that it was not simply a stomach pain which caused the death of the victim but the several injuries which had been caused to her – The very fact that he tried to hide the evidence, resulted in his conviction also under Section 201 IPC. – In such circumstances, no reason found to interfere with the judgment and. order of the High Court’ as far as conviction was concerned – Special leave Petition dismissed. (Paras 3, 4)

        Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Sections 432, 433 and 433A – Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 45 and 47 – Conviction of appellant accused for causing death of his wife by assaulting him with a stick causing severe internal and external injuries and for burying the body of the victim in an attempt to shield himself of offence – Petition for release of petitioner on the basis of the period of sentence already’ undergone by him – Held Life imprisonment is not to be interpreted as being imprisonment for the whole of a convict’s natural life within the scope of ,Section 45 of the aforesaid Code – On a conjoint reading of Sections 45 and 47 of the Indian Penal Code and’ Sections 432, 433 and 433A Cr.P.C., it is now well established that a convict awarded life sentence has to undergo imprisonment for at least 14 years – While Sections 432 and 433 empowers the appropriate Government to suspend, remit or commute sentences, including a sentence of death and life imprisonment, a fetter has been imposed by the legislature on such powers by the ,introduction of Section 433A into the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Amending Act of 1978, – By virtue of the non-obstante clause used In Section 433A, the minimum term of imprisonment In respect of an offence where death is one of the punishments provided by laws or where a death sentence has been commuted to life sentence, has been prescribed as 14 years-In various decisions “imprisonment for life” has been repeatedly held to mean imprisonment for the natural life term of a convict, though the actual period of imprisonment may stand reduced on account of remissions earned- But In no case, with the possible exception of the powers vested In the President under Article 72 of the Constitution and the power vested in the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution, even with remissions earned, can a sentence of imprisonment for life be reduced by discretion of the concerned authorities to below 14 years – It is thereafter left to determine the actual length of imprisonment having regard to the gravity and intensity of the offence – In the instant case, the petitioner was fortunate to have escaped the death penalty – Held to be not a fit case where the petitioner should be released on the basis of the period of sentence already’ undergone by him – Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Paras 15 to 18)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant accused was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of his wife by assaulting him with a stick causing severe internal and external injuries and for burying the body of the victim in an attempt to shield himself of offence. Trial Court convicted accused for said offence. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.

        2.Present Special Leave Petition has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        High Court noted the fact that there was no direct and ocular evidence in the case, but the fact that the deceased was found dead and the petitioner informed the villagers that she had died of pain ,in her stomach, confirmed the fact that he was with her at the time of her death. Again, the conduct of the petitioner in not reporting the matter to the petitioner and, on the other hand, burying the body of the victim in an attempt to shield himself of the offence, did not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Had it not been for the insistence of PW-1 such evidence may have gone completely unnoticed. It is only on account of his insistence that the body of the victim was exhumed, and, thereafter, subjected to post mortem examination which, ultimately, revealed the fact that it was not simply a stomach pain which caused the death of the victim but the several injuries which had been caused to her. The very fact that he tried to hide the evidence, resulted in his conviction also under Section 201 IPC. In such circumstances, no reason was found to interfere with the judgment and. order of the High Court’ as far as conviction was concerned. Special leave Petition was dismissed

       Result : Special leave Petition dismissed.