Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Peelaram vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 December, 2020
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran, S. Ravindra Bhat
1
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-C
(HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No.32324/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-09-2012
in CRLA No.122/2007 passed by the High Court Of Chhatisgarh At
Bilaspur)
PEELARAM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; IA No.6093/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING; IA No. 6096/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN
REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS; and, IA No. 6100/2018 – FOR
EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
Diary No.36838/2017 (II-C)
(IA No.134596/2017 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)
Diary No.40383/2017 (II-A)
(IA No.141024/2017 - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)
SLP(Crl) No.3898/2018 (II-B)
(IA No.98018/2020 - FOR GRANT OF BAIL)
Diary No.41799/2017 (II-C)
(IA No.21954/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING; IA
No.21955/2018 - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE
DEFECTS; and, IA No.21956/2018 - FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Diary No.42562/2017 (II-C)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; IA No.1822/2018 - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING; IA No.1824/2018 - FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT; and, IA No.1825/2018 - FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T.)
Diary No.1450/2018 (II-A)
(IA No.48277/2018 - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING;
Signature Not Verified
IA
No.21904/2018 - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING; and,
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2020.12.18
IA
No.21905/2018 - FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
17:02:44 IST
Reason:
2
Diary No.1857/2018 (II-A)
(IA No.20678/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING; and, IA
No.1831/2019 – FOR GRANT OF BAIL)
Diary No.3717/2018 (II-B)
(IA No.30237/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)
Diary No.4043/2018 (II-C)
(IA No.29758/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING; IA
No.29761/2018 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.; and, IA
No.152151/2018 – FOR GRANT OF BAIL)
Diary No.6826/2018 (II-A)
(IA No.31230/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING; and, IA
No.31231/2018 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Diary No.7014/2018 (II-B)
(IA No.29537/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING; and, IA
No.29541/2018 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Diary No.11080/2018 (II-C)
(IA No.55954/2018 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING; and, IA
No.55956/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Diary No.20002/2018 (II-A)
(IA No.87771/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING; and, IA
No.158500/2018 – FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Diary No.22659/2018 (II-B)
(IA No.88449/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING; and, IA
No.39393/2019 – FOR GRANT OF BAIL)
Diary No.29038/2018 (II-A)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; IA No.115341/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF
DELAY IN FILING; and, IA No.115342/2018 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T.)
Diary No.29558/2018 (II-B)
(IA No.114148/2018 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING; IA
No.89618/2020 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT; IA
No.114150/2018 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.; IA No.89617/2020 –
FOR GRANT OF BAIL; and, IA No.114154/2018 – FOR PERMISSION TO FILE
LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)
3
Date : 15-12-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
Counsel for the Parties:
Item No.36 – Diary No.32324/2017
Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR
Mr. Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Adv.
Mr. M.Z. Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Ali Safeer Farooqui, Adv.
Ms. Heena Khan, Adv.
Item No.36.1 – Diary No.36838/2017
Ms. Richa Kapoor, AOR
Ms. Ayushi Rajput, Adv.
Item No.36.2 – Diary No.40383/2017
Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma, AOR
Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.
Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
Item No.36.3 – SLP (Crl.) No.3898/2018
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR
Item No.36.4 – Diary No.41799/2017
Mr. Ekansh Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Parmanand Gaur, AOR
Mr. Himanshu Mehra, Adv.
Item No.36.5 – Diary No.42562/2017
Mr. Ashok Arora, Adv.
Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
Ms. Reena Rao, Adv.
Mr. Sandiv Kalia, Adv.
Mr. Satbir Singh, Adv.
4
Item No.36.6 – Diary No.1450/2018
Ms. Promila, AOR
Item No.36.7 – Diary No.1857/2018
Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR
Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.
Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
Item No.36.8 – Diary No.3717/2018
Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR
Item No.36.9 – Diary No.4043/2018
Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, AOR
Mr. S.C. Verma, Adv. General
Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR
Ms. Shreya Nair, Adv.
Item No.36.10 – Diary No.6826/2018
Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR
Item No.36.11 - Diary No.7014/2018
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR
Item No.36.12 – Diary No.11080 of 2018
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR
Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv.
Item No.36.13 – Diary No.20002/2018
Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR
Ms. Karishma Maria, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.
Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
5
Item No.36.14 – Diary No.22659 of 2018
Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, AOR
Mr. Birender Kumar Chaudhary, AAG
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR
Item No.36.15 – Diary No.29038/2018
Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai, AOR
Item No.36.16 – Diary No.29558/2018
Mr. S. Mahendran, AOR
Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Item No.36.1 – Diary No.36838/2017; Item No.36.2 – Diary No.40383/2017; Item No.36.4 – Diary No.41799/2017; Item No.36.7 – Diary No.1857/2018; and, Item No.36.10 – Diary No.6826/2018 Delay condoned.
List these matters on 28.01.2021. Item No.36 – Diary No.32324/2017 Delay condoned.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of, in terms of the Signed Order.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Item No.36.3 – SLP (Crl.) No.3898/2018 Leave granted.
The Appeal is allowed, in terms of the Signed Order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 6 Item No.36.5 – Diary No.42562/2017 Delay condoned.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of, in terms of the Signed Order.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Item No.36.6 – Diary No.1450/2018 Delay condoned.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of, in terms of the Signed Order.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Item No.36.8 – Diary No.3717/2018 Delay condoned.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of, in terms of the Signed Order.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Item No.36.9 – Diary No.4043/2018 Delay condoned.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of, in terms of the Signed Order.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Item No.36.11 - Diary No.7014/2018 Delay condoned.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of, in terms of the Signed Order.
7Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Item No.36.12 – Diary No.11080 of 2018 Delay condoned.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of, in terms of the Signed Order.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Item No.36.13 – Diary No.20002/2018 Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The Appeal is disposed of, in terms of the Signed Order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Item No.36.14 – Diary No.22659 of 2018 Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The Appeal is dismissed, in terms of the Signed Order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Item No.36.15 – Diary No.29038/2018 Delay condoned.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of, in terms of the Signed Order.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 8 Item No.36.16 – Diary No.29558/2018 Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The Appeal is disposed of, in terms of the Signed Order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed Orders are placed on the File) 9 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.6556 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Diary No.32324 of 2017) PEELARAM Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent O R D E R Delay condoned.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee submits that the petitioner has already completed actual imprisonment of 14½ years. If that be so, we direct:
a. The concerned Jail Authorities shall immediately facilitate and assist the petitioner in making an appropriate application seeking commutation/ remission;
b. Let the needful in that behalf be done within two weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order; c. The application so preferred shall be transmitted to the concerned State Authorities, who shall immediately take appropriate decision in respect of such application.10
Let the decision be taken within four weeks from the receipt of the communication from the Jail Authorities, as directed above. d. The decision taken by the concerned competent Authority shall then be communicated to the petitioner and if any reprieve is granted, the appropriate benefit shall immediately be conferred upon the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] ......................J. [VINEET SARAN] ......................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15,2020.11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.865 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.3898 OF 2018) HANSABEN Appellant VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT Respondent O R D E R Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.265 of 2014.
The appellant no.2 (original accused no.2), stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 313, 365 read with Section 120-B, 366 read with Section 120-B, 498-A IPC, 506(2) and 120-B IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment on each of those counts, with maximum sentence of 10 years of imprisonment under Section 313 IPC. The appellant has also been directed to pay fine on different counts. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
Heard Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, learned counsel for the State.
12
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant has already completed six years of actual imprisonment, considering the facts and circumstances on record, the sentence undergone by the appellant be taken as sufficient insofar as conviction for the offence punishable under Section 313 IPC is concerned.
We see force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.
While allowing this appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment and order, we direct:
a. The conviction of the appellant in respect of the aforesaid offences is affirmed; b. The actual sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 313 IPC is reduced from 10 years to 6 years;
c. In case the appellant has completed 6 years of actual sentence and her presence is not required in connection with any other offence, she be set at liberty forth-with; and d. The appellant shall deposit the fine as ordered by the Trial Court.
Ordered accordingly.
13With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is allowed.
......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] ......................J. [VINEET SARAN] ......................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15,2020.
14
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6557 OF 2020 (Arising out of Diary No.42562 of 2017) JUGDHAR ALIAS RAM LAL Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent O R D E R Delay condoned.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee submits that the petitioner has already completed actual imprisonment of 15 years. In the premises, we direct:
a. The concerned Jail Authorities shall immediately facilitate and assist the petitioner in making an appropriate application seeking commutation/ remission;
b. Let the needful in that behalf be done within two weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order; c. The application so preferred shall be transmitted to the concerned State Authorities, who shall immediately take appropriate decision in respect of such application.15
Let the decision be taken within four weeks from the receipt of the communication from the Jail Authorities, as directed above. d. The decision taken by the concerned competent Authority shall then be communicated to the petitioner and if any reprieve is granted, the appropriate benefit shall immediately be conferred upon the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] ......................J. [VINEET SARAN] ......................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15,2020.16
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6558 OF 2020 (Arising out of Diary No.1450 of 2018) BHASKAR Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent O R D E R Delay condoned.
Ms. Promila, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee submits that she has received instructions that after completing the period of sentence, the petitioner was released on 03.01.2019. In the circumstances, nothing further need be done in this petition.
In view of the aforesaid development, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] ......................J. [VINEET SARAN] ......................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15,2020.17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6559 OF 2020 (Arising out of Diary No.3717 of 2018) VINOD DEVJIBHAI PANSUL (CHAMAR) Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT Respondent O R D E R Delay condoned.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee submits that the petitioner has already completed actual imprisonment of 14 years. In the premises, we direct:
a. The concerned Jail Authorities shall immediately facilitate and assist the petitioner in making an appropriate application seeking commutation/ remission;
b. Let the needful in that behalf be done within two weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order; c. The application so preferred shall be transmitted to the concerned State Authorities, who shall immediately take appropriate decision in respect of such application.18
Let the decision be taken within four weeks from the receipt of the communication from the Jail Authorities, as directed above. d. The decision taken by the concerned competent Authority shall then be communicated to the petitioner and if any reprieve is granted, the appropriate benefit shall immediately be conferred upon the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] ......................J. [VINEET SARAN] ......................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15,2020.19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6560 OF 2020 (Arising out of Diary No.4043 of 2018) UTTAM VISHWAS ALIAS SONA Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent O R D E R Delay condoned.
Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee submits that the petitioner having completed statutory minimum sentence, has already been granted the benefit of commutation and was released from the jail on 02.10.2020. In the circumstances, nothing further need be done in this petition.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] ......................J. [VINEET SARAN] ......................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15,2020 20 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6561 OF 2020 (Arising out of Diary No.7014 of 2018) SHANKAR @ RINKU Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA Respondent O R D E R Delay condoned.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee submits that the petitioner has already completed actual imprisonment of 19 years. In the premises, we direct:
a. The concerned Jail Authorities shall immediately facilitate and assist the petitioner in making an appropriate application seeking commutation/ remission;
b. Let the needful in that behalf be done within two weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order; c. The application so preferred shall be transmitted to the concerned State Authorities, who shall immediately take appropriate decision in respect of such application.
Let the decision be taken within four weeks from the receipt of the communication from the Jail Authorities, as directed above. 21 d. The decision taken by the concerned competent Authority shall then be communicated to the petitioner and if any reprieve is granted, the appropriate benefit shall immediately be conferred upon the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] ......................J. [VINEET SARAN] ......................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15,2020 22 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6562 OF 2020 (Arising out of Diary No.11080 of 2018) PANCH RAM Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent O R D E R Delay condoned.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee submits that the petitioner has already completed actual imprisonment of 15 years. In the premises, we direct:
a. The concerned Jail Authorities shall immediately facilitate and assist the petitioner in making an appropriate application seeking commutation/ remission;
b. Let the needful in that behalf be done within two weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order; c. The application so preferred shall be transmitted to the concerned State Authorities, who shall immediately take appropriate decision in respect of such application.
Let the decision be taken within four weeks from the receipt of the communication from the Jail Authorities, as directed above. 23 d. The decision taken by the concerned competent Authority shall then be communicated to the petitioner and if any reprieve is granted, the appropriate benefit shall immediately be conferred upon the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] ......................J. [VINEET SARAN] ......................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15,2020 24 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.866 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6563 of 2020 arising out of Diary No.20002 of 2018) KAILASH S/o JAGDEO JADE Appellant VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.
The conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court having been affirmed by the High Court, the present appeal has been filed. Heard Ms. Aparna Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee in support of this appeal. According to the record, the appellant was taken in custody on 04.01.2007 and thus, he will be completing 14 years of actual sentence on 03.01.2021.
With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have gone through the record and do not find any reason to take a different view from the one that weighed with the Courts below. 25 We, therefore, affirm the orders of conviction and sentence. Considering the fact that the appellant shall be completing 14 years of actual sentence on 03.01.2021, we direct:
a. The concerned Jail Authorities shall immediately facilitate and assist the appellant in making an appropriate application seeking commutation/ remission;
b. Let the needful in that behalf be done within two weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order; c. The application so preferred shall be transmitted to the concerned State Authorities, who shall immediately take appropriate decision in respect of such application.
Let the decision be taken within four weeks from the receipt of the communication from the Jail Authorities, as directed above. d. The decision taken by the concerned competent Authority shall then be communicated to the appellant and if any reprieve is granted, the appropriate benefit shall immediately be conferred upon the appellant.
Ordered accordingly.26
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] ......................J. [VINEET SARAN] ......................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15,2020 27 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.867 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6564 of 2020 arising out of Diary No.22659 of 2018) SUNIL @ CHHANIL & ANR. …Appellants VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA …Respondent O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appellants were convicted under Sections 304-B, 316 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo different terms of imprisonment on said counts, the maximum being life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-B. The principal accused, namely, the husband of the deceased has already completed 14 years of actual sentence while the mother-in-law of the deceased was granted benefit under the policy framed by the concerned Government for grant of commutation/remission.
Heard Ms. K. Sarada Devi, learned counsel for the appellants.
The dying declaration of the deceased clearly asserted 28 that the appellants along with other co-accused had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the deceased. Since a definite role was attributed to the appellants, we see no reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] ......................J. [VINEET SARAN] ......................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15,2020.
29
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6565 OF 2020 (Arising out of Diary No.29038 of 2018) RAM SINGH Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent O R D E R Delay condoned.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee submits that the petitioner has already completed actual imprisonment of 15 years. In the premises, we direct:
a. The concerned Jail Authorities shall immediately facilitate and assist the petitioner in making an appropriate application seeking commutation/ remission;
b. Let the needful in that behalf be done within two weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order; c. The application so preferred shall be transmitted to the concerned State Authorities, who shall immediately take appropriate decision in respect of such application.
Let the decision be taken within four weeks from the receipt of the communication from the Jail Authorities, as directed above. 30 d. The decision taken by the concerned competent Authority shall then be communicated to the petitioner and if any reprieve is granted, the appropriate benefit shall immediately be conferred upon the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] ......................J. [VINEET SARAN] ......................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15,2020 31 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.868 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6566 of 2020 arising out of Diary No.29558 of 2018) JOY Appellant VERSUS STATE OF KERALA Respondent O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.729 of 2006.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the prosecution following injuries were suffered by the deceased:
“(i) Incised penetrating wound 3.8 x 2 cm obliquely placed on the left side of the front of abdomen. Its upper inner and showed splitting of tissues which was 10 cms above the public symphysis and 15 cm outer to the midline. Other and was sharply cut. Abdominal wall was penetrated and the wound entered the peritoneal cavity and piercing through the descenting colon it was seen terminated in the perirenal areas of the left kidney. The large intestine showed two cuts 1x3x3 cm and 2x5x3 cm. The wound was directed backwards, downwards and to the left for a total a minimum depth of 9 cm peritoneal cavity contained 1.2 liters of blood with clots.
(ii) Incised wound 3.5x8x5 cms vertically placed on the back of left foraearm, 4 cms below elbow.
(iii) Abrasion 3x1 cm on the front of left knee. 32
(iv) Abrasion 5x5 cm on the inner aspect of right ankle.” According to the learned counsel, PWs 1 and 2 the eye-
witnesses to the occurrence attributed only one blow to the appellant and as such, he would be entitled to have the case converted to that under Section 304 Part-I instead of Section 302 IPC.
We do not find any merit in the submissions so advanced. The injuries suffered by the deceased were definitely attributed to the appellant. Even the first injury by itself was so strong and severe that the person collapsed immediately and lost his life. We, therefore, affirm the view taken by the Trial Court and the High Court.
However, considering the fact that the appellant has already completed 15 years of actual sentence, we direct:
a. The concerned Jail Authorities shall immediately facilitate and assist the appellant in making an appropriate application seeking commutation/ remission;
b. Let the needful in that behalf be done within two weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order; c. The application so preferred shall be transmitted to the concerned State Authorities, who shall immediately take appropriate decision in respect of such application.33
Let the decision be taken within four weeks from the receipt of the communication from the Jail Authorities, as directed above. d. The decision taken by the concerned competent Authority shall then be communicated to the appellant and if any reprieve is granted, the appropriate benefit shall immediately be conferred upon the appellant.
Ordered accordingly.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] ......................J. [VINEET SARAN] ......................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15,2020