ARJUN JADAV versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 1067 · Decided: 02-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 6 S.C.R. 1067 
ARJUN JADAV 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 229 of 2004) 
JULY 02, 2014. 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND RANJANA 
PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
Sentence/Sentencing: Conviction and life imprisonment 
A 
B 
of the writ petitioner - Mercy petitions made twice for C 
premature release of petitioner but rejected - Superintendent 
of Jail also strongly recommended reconsideration of case 
of petitioner - Peti!ioner undergone custody of more than 20 
years including period of remission and about 17 years of 
actual custody - V\lrit petition seeking release - Held: Once a 
D 
person is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment unless 
imprisonment for life is commuted by competent authority, he 
has to undergo imprisonment for whole of his life - In the 
instant case, the case of petitioner was considered by the 
Review Board constituted by the State of West Bengal which 
E 
rejected the prayer - However, in view of the fact that the 
petitioner has actually undergone more than 18 years of 
imprisonment and the Superintendent requested for 
reconsideration of his case and recommended his release, 
if any application for remission is filed by the petitioner or on 
F 
his behalf, the competent authority to place the same before 
the Review Board for reconsidering his case for premature 
release ~ Writ petition dismissed - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 57. 
The petitioner was arrested in a murder case on 
5.3.1985. He was convicted for murder on 15.1.1991 and 
G 
sentenced to life imprisonment simplicitor. The 
conviction and sentence were upheld by appellate courts. 
The wife of the petitioner made mercy petitions twice to 
1067 
H 
'\ 
1068 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 
A the Competent Authority of the State for premature 
release of the petitioner but the same were rejected. The 
Superintendent of the Central Jail also wrote a letter to 
the State Government for reconsideration of the case of 
petitioner and strongly recommended his release. The 
B State Government did not give any response. In the 
meantime, the petitioner underwent custody of more than 
20 years including the period of remission and about 17 
years of actual custody. 
He filed a writ petition under Article 32 in the nature 
C of habeas corpus from custody. The petitioner 
contended that the length of duration of the imprisonment 
for life is equivalent to 20 years of imprisonment and that 
too subject to further remission admissible under the law; 
that the petitioner is liable to be released under Rule 751 
D (C) of the West Bengal Jail Code. Reliance was also 
placed on the explanation to Section 61 of the West 
Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992 whereunder the 
imprisonment for life was equated to a term of 20 years 
of imprisonment. 
E 
On 7 .1.2005, the Supreme Court passed order 
directing to list the matter after decision in W.P (Crl.) 
No.45of1998 titled Md. Munna v. UOI since the arguments 
in the said case were already concluded and judgment 
F was awaited. By the said order, the Supreme Court 
further directed to release the petitioner on parole on his 
furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the 
satisfaction of the Magistrate pending decision of this 
case. Md. Munna v. UOI was, however, dismissed on 
G 16.9.2005. 
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: Once a person is sentenced to undergo life 
imprisonment unless imprisonment for life is commuted· 
H by the competent authority, he has to undergo 
ARJUN JADAV v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
1069 
imprisonment for the whole of his life. It is equally well 
A 
settled that Section 57 IPC does not in any way limit the 
punishment of imprisonment of life to a term of 20 years. 
In the instant case, the mercy petitions filed by the 
petitioner's wife were rejected twice. The case of the 
p-etitioner was considered by the Review Board 
constituted by the State of West Bengal, which rejected 
B 
the prayer. Therefore, no relief can be granted by this 
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
However, in view of the fact that the petitioner has actually 
undergone more than 18 years of imprisonment; the c 
Superintendant, Alipore Central Jail of his own wrote a 
letter dated 18.09.2003 requesting for reconsideration of 
the case of the petitioner'clnd recommending release of 
the petitioner. If any application for remission is filed by 
the petitioner or on his behalf, the Competent Authority 0 
should place the same before th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.