Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dilubhai Hadabhai Vank vs State Of Gujarat on 6 January, 2015
Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Abhay Manohar Sapre
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.15-16 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NOS.6415-6416/2014)
DILUBHAI HADABHAI VANK Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Though there is delay of 3102 days involved in these matters, as the question of law involved is limited to the extent as to the interpretation of Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C., we are inclined to condone the delay and consider the matters on merits. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
Leave granted.
The appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in Sessions Case No.8/1994 of the judgment dated 14.10.1998. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. While he was on furlough leave Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by hatched a conspiracy and killed the deceased along with Narendra Prasad Date: 2015.01.13 17:25:46 IST Reason: two other accused. The Trial Court while convicting 1 the appellant imposed death sentence. On appeal, the High Court by impugned judgment in Confirmation Case No.6/2004 along with Crl.A. No.1497/2004 dated 29th, 30th September and 3rd October, 2005 commuted the death sentence to one of life imprisonment. However, ultimately after noticing the earlier life sentence imposed on the appellant in Sessions Case No.8/1994, the Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to state that the substantive sentences imposed on the appellant should run consecutively. While issuing notice in this appeal, we were mainly concerned with the question of interpretation of Section 427(2) which does not provide for such a direction as has been issued by the Division Bench for the continuous suffering of the life imprisonment one after other by the appellant. Section 427(2) of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
“427(2) 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.” In fact the question is no longer res integra, inasmuch as this very question was already considered by this Court and the legal principle has been set down in clear terms in the decision rendered in Ranjit Singh 2 v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Another, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 304. Paragraph 9 is relevant for our purpose, the relevant part of which reads as under:-
“...It is in the background of this ultimate direction that the proceeding portion has to be read. This last sentence in the direction means that in case, any remission or commutation is granted in respect of the earlier sentence of life imprisonment alone then the benefit of that remission or commutation will not ipso facto be available in respect of the subsequent sentence of life imprisonment which would continue to be unaffected by the remission or commutation in respect of the earlier sentence alone. In other words, the operation of the superimposed subsequent sentence of life imprisonment shall not be wiped out merely because in respect of the corresponding earlier sentence of life imprisonment any remission or commutation has been granted by the appropriate authority. The consequence is that the petitioner would not get any practical benefit of any remission or commutation in respect of his earlier sentence because of the superimposed subsequent life sentence unless the same corresponding benefit in respect of the subsequent sentence is also granted to the petitioner. It is in this manner that the direction is given for the two sentences of life imprisonment not to run concurrently.
(Underlining is ours) 3 In the light of the said statement of law declared by this Court and as the appellant falls within the said sub-Section (2) of Section 427 of Cr.P.C., as regards the matter of imposition of punishment to be awarded, it will have to be held that the direction of the Division Bench of the High Court that the substantive life sentence imposed on the appellant should run consecutively cannot be sustained.
We, therefore, modify the said part of the judgment to the effect that the two life sentences imposed on the appellant, namely, one in Sessions Case No.8/94 vide judgment dated 14.10.1998 and the modified punishment imposed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Confirmation Case No.6/2004 along with Crl.A. No.1497/2004 dated 29th, 30th September and 3rd October, 2005 shall run concurrently and not as directed by the Division Bench that he should undergo the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him after the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him in Sessions Case No.8/1994. It is needless to state that the principle set down in the underlined portion of paragraph 9 of the judgment in Ranjit Singh (Supra) will have to be followed in the matter of grant of any remission of commutation.
4 With the above only modification in regard to the sufferance of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant, the appeals stand disposed of.
................................J. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] ................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 06, 2015
5
ITEM NO.203 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).6415-6416/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29/09/2005, 30/09/2005 & 03/10/2005 in CC No. 6/2004 with CRLA No. 1497/2004 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad) DILUBHAI HADABHAI VANK Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for bail and c/delay in filing SLP and exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and office report) (For Final Disposal) Date : 06/01/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Fakhruddin,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Haresh Raichura,Adv. Ms. Saroj Raichura,Adv. Mr. Kalp Raichura,Adv.
Mr. Raj Kishor Coudhary,Adv. Mr. Rajat Vats,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Jesal Wahi,Adv.
For Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeals stand disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (SHARDA KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file) 6