LexCHATAR SINGH versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
('
CHAT AR SINGH
A
v.
STATE OF M.P.
NOVEMBER 24, 2006
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
B
Sentence/Sentencing:
Consecutive sentence-Maximum imprisonment-Accused convicted u/ C
s. 364 !PC-High Court held that total period of Rigorous Imprisonment
would he 20 years-Correctness of-Held, incorrect-In view of s. 3 I Ct. P. C,
accused cannot be sentenced for period longer than 14 years-Penal Code,
1860-Section 364-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 31 and its
proviso.
D
Prosecution's case was that the accused kidnapped two boys and when
his demand for ransom was not fulfilled, he killed them. He was prosecuted
u/ss. 302, 201, 364, 365 and 120-B IPC. Trial Court held that there was no
material to show that appellant had killed the victims and therefore conyicted
appellant for offences punishable u/ss. 364 and 365 r/w. ss. 120-B and 201 E
and passed various sentences. On appeal, High Court accepted that prosecution
could not establish that the boys were murdered by appellant, but upheld the
finding of Sessions Judge as regards involvement of appellant for alleged
commission of offence u/s. 364. The High Court held that the total period of
rigorous imprisonment would be 20 years.
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the Trial Judge as
also the High Court committed an error in sentencing the appellant to undergo
20 years' Rigorous imprisonment in view of Section 31 Cr. P.C.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The Provisos appended to Section 31 Cr.P.C clearly mandate that
F
G
the accused could not be sentenced to imprisonment for a period longer than
fourteen years. In view of this, the High Court committed a manifest error in
sentencing the appellant for 20 years' Rigorous Imprisonment. The maximum
sentence imposable being 14 years and having regard to the fact that the H
369
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A appellant is in custody for more than 12 years, interest of justice would be
sub-served if the appellant is directed to be sentenced to the period already
undergone. [374-B)
Kamalanantha & Ors. v. State of T.N., [2005) 5 SCC 194; K.
Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan, [2005) I SCC 754 and Zulfiwar Ali & Anr. v.
B State of UP., (1986] ALL. L.J. 1177, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.623 of
2005.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 3-2-2004 of the High Court
C of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.2665/1998.
T.N. Singh for the Appellant.
N.M. Ghatate, C.D. Singh, Merusagar Samantharay and Kamakshi S.
D
Mehlwal for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. Interpretation and application of Section 31 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is involved in this appeal, which arises out of
a judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2004 passed by a learned Single
E Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal
No.2665 of 1998.
In view of the question involved herein, we need not dilate on the
factual matrix of the m~tter in great details. Suffice it say that the appellan~
F herein was proceeded against in a case involving kidnapping of two boys
Sudhir Kumar and Sushi! Kumar, aged about IO to 12 years. They were sons
of Ramakant Katiyar (P. W.6). They had gone to attend school at about 7.30
in the morning of 29th December, 1994. They were to return at about 1.30 p.m.,
but, when they did not return till 5.30 p.m., a search for them was made. After
the informant came back home, he was informed by his wife that one of the
G classmate of the boys, namely, Gulabchandra Gour (P.W.7), had delivered his
school bag informing that Satyendra (P. W. l 0) had asked him to do the same.
P. W.6 went to the house of Satyendra to make inquiries about his son and
came to learn that victim Sudhir Kumar had come to his house and handed
over the bag stating that he was proceeding towards the farm. A First
Information Report was lodged. Allegedly, the Chowkidar of the school,
H namely, Ramesh Kumar (P.W.8) discovered certain wearing apparels as also
..
CHATARSINGHv. STATEOFM.P. [S.B. SINHA,J.]
371
a letter demanding ransom of Rs.2,0001-. He handed over the trouser and the A
letter to the police. On the next day, one Prakash Chandra Sharma came to
the house of Ramakant and stated that he had found a letter in which it was
stated that P. W.6 had committed a grave error in intimating the police. Therein
it was, allegedly, mentioExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.