Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"31. On close scrutiny of the evidence available on record we are of the considered view that the appellant Shekshpear has committed the offence punishable under Sections 363/34, 366/34, 376/34 (virtually of gang rape), 346/34 & 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Harsh Sanjeev Tirki has committed the offence punishable under Sections 376/34 (virtually of gang rape), 302/34 & 346/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellants Shekshpear and Harsh Sanjeev Tirki under Sections 376/34 & 346/34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby maintained. Conviction of the appellant Shekshpear under Sections 363/34, 366/34 & 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code are altered into under Sections 363, 366 & 302 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for 15 days, rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for 15 days, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for 5 months. Appellant Hash Sanjeev Tirki is acquitted of the charges of under Sections 363/34 & 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code and his conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby maintained."

4. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has completed more than 14 years of sentence, therefore, his case was sent to the State Government for grant of remission and the Additional Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Home (Jail) Department vide its order dated 04.09.2019 (Annexure P/3) granted remission to the petitioner as per the power conferred under Section 432 (1) of the Cr.P.C., in which, name of the appellant is mentioned at Serial No. 5. It has been further contended that the petitioner has been granted remission for offence under Section 302 of IPC, but there is no consideration with regard to offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 346 of IPC, therefore, he made representation for adjustment of the sentence under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 346 of IPC with the sentence awarded to him under Section 302 of IPC before Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.), but the same has been rejected vide order dated 28.11.2019 (Annexure P/4). The operative part of the order dated 28.11.2019 (Annexure P/4) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) is extracted below:-

14. Wherein, the petitioner has been imposed life imprisonment for 1 time only, which has already been remitted by the State Government as detailed in foregoing paragraph of the judgment.

15. The petitioner has been convicted for committing offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 346 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, 3 years, 7 years & 6 months respectively and for offence under Section 302 of IPC, he has been sentenced for life imprisonment. The petitioner has been granted remission for offence under Section 302 of IPC, therefore, he cannot claim that the remission which has been granted to him for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC will be de facto applicable in case of grant of remission for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 346 of IPC. Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. gives power to the trial Court to award sentence and in the present case, the trial Court has awarded sentence to be run separately which has been affirmed by Divisional Bench of this Court also, therefore, this Court cannot issue direction to run both the sentences concurrently.

17. The petitioner was granted remission by the State Government vide its order dated 04.09.2019 after 20 years completion of imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC, therefore, petitioner's remission for offence under Section 302 IPC will be de facto applicable for offence committed by him under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 346 of IPC, cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Muthuramalingam (Supra).

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per paragraph 290 of Jail Manual, since the petitioner has been granted remission by the State Government for punishment of offence under Section 302 of IPC, therefore, he is also entitled to get the remission for sentences awarded to him for commission of offence under Section 363, 366, 376 & 346 of IPC. The submission is contrary to the paragraph of Jail Manual as paragraph 290 of the Jail Manual provides that any person who is facing two or more sentences on separate charges, such sentences consisting of imprisonment or imprisonment of life, shall commence the one after expiration of the other unless the Court otherwise directs, it means the sentence of 7 years for commission of offence under Section 363, 366, 376 & 346 of IPC will run after expiration of life imprisonment awarded to him for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of remission of Section 302 of IPC for Section 363, 366, 376 & 346 of IPC. Paragraph 290 of the Jail Manual is extracted below:-