JITENDRA @ KALLA versus STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 25-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
JITENDRA @ KALLA
v.
STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No. 2133 of 2017 etc.)
OCTOBER 25, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing: Trial of the appellant-accused for
offence under two FIRs – Trial court convicted the accused – In
both the cases sentence of rigorous life imprisonment was imposed –
In respect of the first case trial court directed that the accused would
not be considered for grant of remission till he underwent the actual
sentence of 30 years – In respect of the second case trial court
directed that the life sentence would start after the life sentence in
first case was over and was to continue for the rest of the life of the
accused – In High Court counsel for the accused stated that it did
not intend to challenge the findings on conviction and confined the
challenge to the sentence – High Court discussing the evidence
found that the accused was rightly convicted – In respect of life
sentences in the two cases High Court held that the sentences could
not run consecutively in view of s. 427(2) of Cr.P.C. – Applying the
principle of “just deserts” High Court reduced the sentence to the
period already undergone i.e. 16 years and 10 months and directed
to release the accused forthwith – High Court thereafter, corrected
its judgment by deleting the portion, whereby it had reduced the
sentence to  the period already undergone and had directed release
of the accused, as a typographical mistake – In appeal, accused
challenged the modification order regarding the sentence and also
challenged the conviction – Plea of accused that the statement of
the counsel for the accused before High Court for not pressing
challenge to his conviction, was made without such instruction from
the accused – Held: Court records show that statement was made
by the counsel on the instruction from the accused – However,
notwithstanding such statement High Court had considered the
matter on merit and held that conviction order by trial court was
justified – The alteration of the punishment to the period already
undergone, was not a typographical mistake – Therefore
622
[2018] 12 S.C.R. 622
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
623
modification of its order by the High Court was beyond its
jurisdiction – In view of s. 427 of Cr.P.C. order of consecutive
sentences could not have been passed – However, High Court was
not correct in removing the cap of 30 years – Thus, conviction is
upheld; the life sentences would run concurrently and the accused
would not have a right to seek remission till the completion of 30
years of RI – Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 31 and
427.
Remission of Sentence – Discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 427 – Life sentences –
Held: Cannot be given consecutively – They shall run concurrently –
Sentence/Sentencing.
Dismissing the appeals filed by the accused and partly
allowing those filed by the complainants and the State, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is not correct that Counsel for the appellant
had made a statement before the High Court without instructions
from the appellant. The High Court records “that the appellant
does not press the appeal on merits with respect to the judgment
of conviction” and specifically states that the statement is made
‘on instructions’ in this behalf.  It is clear from the above that the
counsel for the appellant had received the instructions not to
press the case on merits.  After the judgment was pronounced,
at no stage, the appellant took the objection that the aforesaid
statement was made without instructions. It is stated for the first
time in the present appeals. The Court record has to be believed.
If according to the aggrieved party there is some error, the only
option with the aggrieved party is to approach that very court,
seeking correction of that order.  It was not done. Therefore, the
Court has to proceed on the premise that the counsel for the
appellant had made the aforesaid statement on instructions from
the appellant. [Para 20]  [636-D-H]
Muthuramalingam and others v. State represented by
Inspector of Police (2016) 8 SCC 313 : [2016] 5 SCR
30 – followed.
State of Maharashtra v. Shrinivas Nayak and Another
(1982) 2 SCC 463 : [1983] 1 SCR 8  – relied on.
JITENDRA @ KALLA v. STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
Jeetu @ Jitendra and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh
(2013) 11 SCC 489 : [2012] 13 SCR 161 – referred to.
1.2  Notwiths

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