BHOLA KUMHAR versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 1176 · Decided: 09-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
   [2022] 7 S.C.R. 1176
1176
BHOLA KUMHAR
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2022)
MAY 09, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(d), 21 – Illegal detention –
Accused kept in prison beyond the Period of Imprisonment – The
appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 376 of IPC
and Sections 3(ii)(v) and 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – He was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12
years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo
imprisonment for one more year – High Court in appeal, confirmed
the conviction but reduced his sentence of 12 years rigorous
imprisonment to 7 years imprisonment – Further, it was ordered to
compensate the victim by paying Rs.15,000/- within a period of six
months – The appellant has undergone rigorous imprisonment for
10 years 03 months and 16 days with remission – The appellant
was detained in custody exceeding the period of imprisonment in
terms of the judgment of the High Court – Appellant approached
Supreme Court, seeking compensation for being kept in prison
beyond the period of sentence – Held: There is no justification for
not complying with the judgment of the High Court reducing the
sentence of the appellant – Violation of not only Art. 19(1)(d) but
also Art. 21 of the Constitution of India – Appellant entitled to be
compensated in terms of money – Compensation to the tune of Rs.7.5
Lakhs to be paid by the State holding that it is vicariously liable for
the act/omission committed by its officers – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – ss. 386, 357 – Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual,
1968 - Rule 2(g) – Madhya Pradesh Prison Rules, 1968 - Rule 715.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: This Court is not oblivious of the fact that the
appellant herein was held guilty in a grave offence. But then,
when a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused
and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1177
the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final,
the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can
be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment.
When such a convict is detained beyond the actual release date
it would be imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law and
would thus, violate not only Article 19(d) but also Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. This is what was suffered by the appellant
for a very long period. Considering the fact that the appellant is a
youth, this long and illegal imprisonment beyond the period of
sentence, taking into account the long and illegal deprivation of
the right to move freely and thereby, the violation of right under
Article 19 (d) of the Constitution of India, the violation of right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and the mental agony and pain caused due to such extra,
illegal detention, this Court of the view that the appellant is
entitled to be compensated in terms of money. [Para 17][1188-C-
F]
Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (1983) 4 SCC 141
: [1983] 3 SCR 508; Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of
Gujarat AIR 1987 SC 1073 : [1987] 1 SCR 562; A.R.
Antulay V. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 : [1988] 1
Suppl. SCR 1 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1983] 3 SCR 508
referred to
Para 1
[1987] 1 SCR 562
referred to
Para 18
[1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1
referred to
Para 19
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.937 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2018/19.07.2018 of
the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.110 of
2015.
A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv., Tilak Raj Pasi, Parnam Prabhakar, E.
Keerthi, H. Rajasekar, Satyapal Khushal Chand Pasi, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Sourav Roy, Dy. A.G., Mahesh Kumar, Prabudh Singh, Kaushal
Sharma, Srinivasa Kumar Bogisam, Ms. Devika Khanna, Mrs. V.D.
Khanna, VMZ Chambers, Advs. for the Respondent.
BHOLA KUMHAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
This Special Leave Petition is filed assailing the judgment and
order dated 19.7.2018 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in
Criminal Appeal No. 110/2015 whereby and whereunder the conviction
of the petitioner under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
‘IPC’) 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.