1. Convict sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and a term under Section 376 IPC — eligibility for premature release under Rule 341, Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 639
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
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
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.
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.
Subject
Criminal Law - Prison Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 - Rule 341 - Life convict u/s 302 IPC - Also convicted for 7 years u/s 376 - Both sentences running concurrently - Whether entitled to early release on completion of sentence u/s 376 - Held, High Court rightly answered in affirmative. (Para 11)
(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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR, Mr. S. Partha Sarathi and Mr. S. Raja Rajeshwaran, Advs.
For the Appellant :Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR, Mr. S. Partha Sarathi and Mr. S. Raja Rajeshwaran, Advs.
Table of Contents
2. Whether conviction under an ineligible section bars premature release entirely or only until the sentence for that specific offence is served. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Interpreting rules to bar release for minor ineligible offences while allowing it for more serious ones would be incongruous and unreasonable. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Conviction under an ineligible section does not permanently bar premature release if the sentence for such offence has been served. (Para 8 , 10 )
5. High Court's view on eligibility affirmed; however, directions to reopen cases of all life convicts are set aside. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Does a conviction under an ineligible section of the IPC permanently bar a prisoner from premature release under the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules?
No. If a prisoner is sentenced to life for one offence and a shorter term for an ineligible offence, they become eligible for premature release consideration once the sentence for the ineligible offence is served. (Para 8 , 10 )
7. How should the proviso to Rule 341(3) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, be interpreted regarding concurrent sentences?
The proviso should not be read as a stand-alone bar that overrides all other provisions of Rule 341; it must be interpreted reasonably to avoid incongruous results where minor offences block release for lifers. (Para 8 , 10 )
8. Can a court extend directions for the reopening of prisoner cases to individuals who were not parties to the original proceedings?
No, the court is not justified in extending directions beyond the parties to the proceedings before it. (Para 12 )
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 Tra
