Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Prem Lal Yadav vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 March, 2023
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 796-800 OF 2023
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos. 1161-1165 of 2023)
PREM LAL YADAV & ANR. ETC. .....Appellant(s)
Vs.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ....Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
On the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard finally.
The appellants were charged with committing offences, inter alia, under Section 302 read with 149 IPC, in the course of an incident which occurred on 19.12.2011. This resulted in two deaths and one person receiving grievous injuries. They were convicted by the trial Court’s Judgment dated 26.11.2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment on both counts. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge omitted to state whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively, as Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA Date: 2023.03.20 17:16:38 IST Reason: required by Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This omission was over-looked even by the High Court. 1 Therefore, the appellants are before us.
The requirement of spelling out whether sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively, per Section 31, was emphasized by the judgment of this Court in “Gagan Kumar vs. State of Punjab” reported in (2019) 5 SCC 154 where the Court stated that it is the duty of the trial Court to state expressly as to how the sentences are to run. The requirement of law as to when a convict is directed to undergo two life sentences, was specifically dealt with by the Constitution Bench judgment in “Muthuramalingam and Ors. vs. State represented by Inspector of Police” reported in (2016) 8 SCC 313. The Court noted that it would be highly anomalous for Section 31 Cr.P.C. to operate, in its own terms and stated the correct position as follows:
“The legal position is, thus, fairly well settled that imprisonment for life is a sentence for the remainder of the life of the offender unless of course the remaining sentence is commuted or remitted by the competent authority. That being so, the provisions of Section 31 under Cr.P.C. must be so interpreted as to be consistent with the basic tenet that a life sentence requires the prisoner to spend the rest of his life in prison. Any direction that requires the offender to undergo imprisonment for life twice over would be anomalous and irrational for it will disregard the fact that humans like all other living beings have but one life to live. So understood Section 31(1) would permit consecutive running of sentences only if such sentences do not happen to be life sentences. That is, in our opinion, the only way one can avoid an obvious impossibility of a prisoner serving two consecutive life sentences.” 2 In the present case having regard to the limited notice issued, this Court is of the opinion that the error of the trial Court which went unnoticed by the High Court needs to be corrected. The appellants shall undergo the sentences imposed upon them, concurrently. The impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the Trial Court shall stand modified to the above extent.
The appeals are allowed.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
...................J. (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) ....................J. (DIPANKAR DATTA) New Delhi;
March 14, 2023.3
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-C
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.) Nos. 1161-1165/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-03-2022 in CRA No. 1129/2012 17-03-2022 in CRA No. 5/2013 17-03-2022 in CRA No. 38/2013 17-03-2022 in CRA No. 39/2013 17-03-2022 in CRA No. 71/2013 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur) PREM LAL YADAV & ANR. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s) (IA No. 6512/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 14-03-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Devashish Tiwari, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of signed order. All pending applications are disposed of.
(NEETA SAPRA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file) 4