LexKRISHAN LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012) 11 S.C.R. 220 KRISHAN LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1972-1973 of 2012) DECEMBER 03, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958: c rr.2 (d), 9 and 10 A(i) -Application for release on 'Parole', by appellant, a life convict, who was sentenced to remain in prison for the rest of his life - Held: In view of the order of the Court, appellant is not entitled to normal parole in terms of r. 9 - However, in emergent cases involving humanitarian 0 consideration, the Authority concerned is free to pass appropriate orders in terms of Rule 10 A(i) and as directed in the judgment - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - s.401 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 148, 450 rlw. ss. 149 and 120-B. E The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death alongwith 9 others for offences punishable ulss. 302, 307, 148, 450 read with ss. 149 and 120-B, IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court1 while F deciding the appeals of the convicts against their conviction as also those of the complainant respondent no. 2 and the State for restoring death sentence of the convicts, by its judgment dated 29.03.2001, confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused G persons by the High Court and held that the imprisonment for life awarded to the appellant would be the imprisonment in prison for the rest of his life and he would not be entitled to any commutation or premature 1. 2001 (2) SCR 864 .. H 220 KRISHAN LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 221 release u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, A Prisoners Act, Jail Manual or any other Statute and the · Rules made for the purposes of grant of commutation and remissions. On the petition of the appellant, the High Court directed the Advisory c~mmittee to consider his case and the Advisory Committee, on 18.08.2010, B released him on parole for 40 days. When the complainant apprised the High Court of the order of the Supreme Court, the High Court, by order dated 06.10.2010 issued a show cause notice to the appellant and the State Government and by final order dated 06.04.2011 c dismissed the petition filed by the appellant as having rendered infructuous. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is true that this Court, in Subhash D Chander*, has not considered appellant's right or entitlement to parole. However, the order in the said case shows that it was represented on behalf of the appellant that the Court can pass appropriate orders to deprive the appellant of his liberty throughout his life and if he was sentenced to life imprisonment, he would never claim his pre-mature release or commutation of his sentence on any ground. It is also relevant to note that in the course E of hearing, it was pleaded for the complainant that if the appellant was not awarded death sentence, he was likely F to eliminate the remaining family members of the deceased, as was evident from his past conduct and behaviour, and this Court accepted the apprehension so made and passed the order insofar as the appellant was concerned. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant has to G serve the imprisonment throughout his life in prison and is not entitled to any commutation or premature release under the Code or any other provision made for the purposes of grant of commutation and remissions. [Para 6-7] [225-G-H; 226-A-D-G-H] H 222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A *Subash Chander vs. Krishan Lal & Ors. 2001 ( 2 ) SCR 864 = (2001) 4 sec 458 - referred to 1.2. In view of the order of this Court dated 29.03.2001 in Subash Chander it is reiterated that the appellant is not 8 entitled to normal parole in terms of r. 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. However, in emergent cases involving humanitarian consideration, the Authority concerned is free to pass appropriate orders in terms of r.10 A(i) of the said Rules. Even while considering such application, the Authority concerned is C directed to adhere to the conditions mentioned in the said Rule, impose appropriate stringent condition(s) and see that by the temporary release of the appellant nothing happens to the complainant and his family and also pass appropriate orders giving them necessary protection. It D is also made clear that if the Authority concerned is not sati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.