CHHOTELAL versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2011] 8 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 14-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 8 S.C.R. 239 
CHHOTELAL 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2006) 
JULY 14, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376 (2) and 302 - Rape and 
murder of a young girl aged ten years - Trial court convicted 
appellant-accused ulss. 376(2) and 302 and sentenced him C 
to imprisonment for life with further clarification that the 
sentence would continue for the remaining period of his entire 
life - Order upheld by the High Court - Interference with -
Held: Not called for since the evidence against the appellant 
appears to be fully credible - However, direction issued that o 
the appellant would serve out the sentence of imprisonment 
upto the end of his life subject to any remissions which the 
Government may choose to give to the appellant - Sentence/ 
Sentencing. · 
Mui/a v State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 508: 2010 (2) SCR 
E 
633 - relied 
on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2010 (2) SCR 633 
Relied on. 
Para 3 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 664 of.2006. 
" 
From the Judgment & Order dated 10.7.2003 of the High 
F 
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in CRLA No. 136 of 1992. 
G 
Aishwarya Bhati, Harbans Lal Bajaj for the Appellant. 
Praveena Gautam, C.D. Singh, Vibha Datta Makhija for 
the Respondent. 
239 
H 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. The appellant Chhote Lal stands convicted· under 
Section 376(2) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having 
B committed rape and murder of a young girl 10 years of age and 
has been sentenced by the trial court to imprisonment for life 
under both the provisions by the Sessions Court and it was 
further clarified that the sentence would continue for the 
remaining period of the entire life of the accused. An appeal 
C was thereafter taken to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh 
which has confirmed· the order of the Sessions Judge. This 
appeal has been filed in this Court as a jail petition. 
. 
2. Mr. Harbans Lal Bajaj, the learned Amicus appointed 
0 eiirlier did not put in appearance on the last several dates and 
even yesterday when the matter was called out. We had, 
accordingly, requested Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel. 
who was present in the Court to assist us in the matter and 
appointed her as an Amicus in place of Mr. Harbans Lal Bajaj. 
E We have, accordingly, heard her as well as the State Counsel 
on the merits ofthe case. 
3. We have gone through the evidence with the assistance 
of the learned counsel and find no cause for interference on the 
facts of the case as the evidence against the appellant appears 
F to be fully credible. We, however, feel that in the light of the 
judgment of this Court in Mui/a v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 
508, some modification has to be made in the sentencing part 
of the impugned judgments. In the cited case, it has been 
observed that though it was open to the courts to award a 
G sentence prescribing the length of incarceration but the power 
to cor:nmute the sentence or to grant remissions which rested 
with\t11e Government had to be respected. Paragraphs 85 and 
86 of the judgment read as under:-
H 
"85. We are in complete agreement with the above 
--
CHHOTELAL v. STATE OF M.P. 
. 241 
dictum of this Court. It is open to the sentencing court to 
A 
· prescribe the length of incarceration. This is especially true 
in cases where death sentence has been replaced, by life 
imprisonment. The court should be free to determine the 
length of imprisonment which will suffice the off~nce 
committed. Thus we hold that despite the nature of the 
B 
crime, the mitigating circumstances can allow us to 
substitute the death penalty with life sentence. 
86. Here we would like to note that the punishment 
of life sentence in this case must extend to their full life, 
C 
subject to any remission by the Government for good 
reasons." 
4. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal but direct (in the 
' 
light of the aforesaid observations) that the appellant would ' 
serve out the sentence of imprisonment upto the e,rd of his. life 
D 
but this directionwould be subject to any remissions·which the 
Government may .choose to give under the circumstances to 
the appellant. In this background, we issue a further direction 
to the State Government that (as the appellant has been in 
custody since the 10th January, 1989) to take a decision on 
E 
the appellant's continued detention or release in accordance 
wi

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