Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Haseen Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Others – Respondents
Cr.A.No.2113 Of 2000
Decided On : 30-06-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Amanulla Usmani.
For the Respondents: Shri S.K. Kashyap.

A sentence for imprisonment of life will run for the entire life of the convict unless the remission is granted in accordance with law, and the power to grant remission lies with the State Government.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 374(2), 432, 433, 433A, Indian Penal Code - Sections 376, 506 - Life Imprisonment - [RAPE] - [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 374(2), 432, 433, 433A, Indian Penal Code - Sections 376, 506] - The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. The court also addressed the issue of whether the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant means actual sentence of 14 years or 20 years and whether the court can commute or reduce the sentence giving the benefit of remission. The court discussed the legal provisions under Section 53, 45, 432, 433, and 433A of the IPC and Cr.P.C., and highlighted the interpretation that a sentence for imprisonment of life will run for the entire life of the convict unless the remission is granted in accordance with law. The court also emphasized that the power to grant remission lies with the State Government and directed the competent authority of the State Government to consider the release of the appellant in accordance with law by granting the benefit of remission.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the judgment convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and sentencing him to Life Imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 with a fine of Rs.1 lakh and one year RI for the offence under Section 506 of IPC. The prosecutrix, who is the daughter of the appellant, disclosed that the appellant had committed rape upon her for about 7 years, and the trial Court found the offence against the appellant to be proved.
Finding of the Court:

The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. The court directed the competent authority of the State Government to consider the release of the appellant in accordance with law by granting the benefit of remission.
Issues: The issues addressed by the court included the conviction and sentence of the appellant, the duration of the sentence of life imprisonment, and the power of the court to commute or reduce the sentence giving the benefit of remission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a sentence for imprisonment of life will run for the entire life of the convict unless the remission is granted in accordance with law. The court also highlighted that the power to grant remission lies with the State Government.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant and directed the competent authority of the State Government to consider the release of the appellant in accordance with law by granting the benefit of remission.

JUDGMENT :

(Prakash Shrivastava, J.)

1. By this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 17.05.2000 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.390/1999 whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and sentenced to Life Imprisonment for offence under Section 376 with fine of Rs.1 lakh and also sentenced to one year RI for the offence under Section 506 of IPC and default sentence of six months in case of non-payment of the fine amount. Both sentences are to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case is that the prosecutrix is the daughter of the appellant and when she was aged about 8 years, her mother Reshma Bi had died due to illness. After the death of mother of the prosecutrix, the appellant had married twice and one of the wives had fled away and second had died and the third wife of the appellant was Jarina Bi. Further case of the prosecution is that when the prosecutrix was aged about 12 years, at that time, the appellant had committed rape upon her for the first time inspite of the resistance by the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was also threatened by the appellant of severe consequence in case of disclosure of the incident to anybody. Thereafter the appellant used to commit rape every now and then. In 1994, the jhuggies were removed and the appellant along with the prosecutrix came to Goutam Nagar Janta Quarter but he had continued to rape the prosecutrix.

3. On the 25th August at night when he was committing rape, at that time, Jarina Bi, the stepmother of the prosecutrix, had seen it and the appellant had beaten Jarina Bi. On the third day, Jarina Bi had asked the prosecutrix to go to Jaitoon Bi, the sister of the appellant (Bua) and disclose the entire incident. On 05.10.1999, in the afternoon, the prosecutrix left the house and went to Bareli where her Bua was residing but on reaching Bareli, she found that Jaitoon Bi had gone to Bhopal, therefore, she waited at Bareili and on 07.10.1999, when Jaitoon Bi came back from Bhopal, the prosecutrix had disclosed the entire incident to Jaitoon Bi, who had taken the prosecutrix to the police station where the FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered and the investigation started. The spot man was prepared, medical examination of the prosecutrix was done and her frock was sent for the chemical examination. After completing the investigation, Police had filed the challan, appellant had abjured the guilt and the trial took place.

4. The trial Court after considering the evidence of the prosecutrix and other relevant witnesses has found that the offence against the appellant is proved. Accordingly, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant. He further submits that the appellant has already remained in custody for a substantial period, which is much more than 14 years, therefore, he should be released or his sentence should be commuted.

6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the offence has duly been proved and the appeal does not have any merit.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that undisputedly, the prosecutrix is the daughter of the appellant. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has narrated the entire incident in detail. She has disclosed that she was residing with the appellant since birth and at the age of 8 years, her mother – Reshma Bi had died and that during the lifetime of her mother, the appellant had married to another lady and thereafter he had also contracted third marriage. She has disclosed that when she was aged about 12 years, her stepmother was admitted in the hospital and she used to live alone in the house. At that time, the appellant had committed rape upon he