SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, CJI., L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
State Of Tamil Nadu - Appellant
Versus
P. Veera Bhaarathi - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 120 of 2019 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5333 of 2018]
Decided On : 22-01-2019
(b) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - High court directing reopening of all prisoners sentenced with life imprisonment after completion of 14 years of custody - Judgments are valid inter parties - High Court not justified in extending the direction beyond the parties to the proceedings before it. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The moot point requiring consideration in this case is whether the respondent who has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and also under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years is entitled for early release under the provisions of Rule 341 of the Rules on completion of his present prison term which is about 16 years.
Finding of the Court:
A life convict u/s 302 IPC and also convicted for 7 years u/s 376 where both sentences are running concurrently, would be entitled to consideration for early release on completion of sentence u/s 376.
Judgments being between inter parties the direction cannot be extended to beyond the parties to the proceedings before it.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave granted.
2. The manner in which the High Court of Madras understood the provisions of Rule 341 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules") and the consequential directions issued as contained in paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 26th October, 2016 are under challenge in this appeal by the State.
3. Rule 341 of the Rules which will require reconsideration of the Court, though very exhaustive, is set out below:
"(1) The sentences of all prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life or to more than twenty years imprisonment in the aggregate or imprisonment for life and imprisonment for terms exceeding in the aggregate twenty years shall, for the purpose of this rule, be deemed to be sentences of imprisonment for twenty years.
(2) The cases of prisoners undergoing imprisonment for life shall, ordinarily be placed before the Advisory Board as constituted for consideration as to whether their parole will be recommended, on completion of ten years of actual imprisonment:
Provided that by virtue of provision contained in section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), the cases of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life on or after 18th December 1978 for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or in whose case a sentence of death imposed has been commuted under section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) into one of the imprisonment for life, shall be placed before the Advisory Board only if they have served at least fourteen years of imprisonment. Explanation (1).- Special remission granted in the case of life convicts in connection with the Second World Tamil Conference and Gandhiji's Centenary Celebrations shall be taken into account for calculation of two thirds of their life sentence in terms of rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, for eligibility for consideration under the Advisory Board Scheme, provided that such cases shall be placed before the Advisory Board only after the convicts have actually under gone imprisonment for ten and half years. Explanation (2).- The set off period specified in section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act, 2 of 1974) in the case of lifers sentenced prior to 18th December 1978 shall be taken into account and their cases shall be placed before the Advisory Board after completion of ten years of actual sentence including the above set off period, if any. The period of ten and half years shall also include the special remission of one year sanctioned in G.O. Ms. No. 3333, Home, dated the 19th December 1971, and six months sanctioned in G.O. Ms. No. 2475, Home, dated the 14th September 1977. Explanation (3).- The set off period specified in section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) shall be taken into account in the case of lifers sentenced on or after 18th December 1978 referred to in the proviso under sub-rule (2) for computing the period of fourteen years.
(3) The cases of prisoners sentenced to more than three years, excepting lifers to whom sub-rule (2) applies, shall be placed before the Advisory Board if they have served two thirds of their sentence including remission :
Provided that prisoners of the following categories who have been sentenced to imprisonment for more than three years or imprisonment for life shall not be eligible for premature release under the Advisory Board Scheme :-
(i) Prisoners convicted of rape, dacoity, terrorist crimes, offences against the State or prisoners sentenced under section 224, 376, 396 to 400, 402, 467, 471, 472, 474, 489-A, 489-B and 489-D of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act XLV of 1860) ;
(ii) Prisoners convicted of economical offences, black marketing, smuggling or misuse of power and authority ;
(iii) Prisoners sentenced under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988), the Suppression of Immoral Traffic
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.