LexMAFABHAI MOTIBHAI SAGAR versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1448 : 2024 INSC 806 Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 4307 of 2024) 21 October 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with sections 147 and 148 Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His application for remission was considered expeditiously by the State Government after interference of the Supreme Court. The State Government while granting remission imposed four conditions on the appellant. The appellant contended that two out of these four conditions are vague, subjective and arbitrary. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the legality of these two conditions imposed by the appropriate government in exercise of its powers under Section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) while remitting the life sentence of the appellant. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – Explained: Held: The appropriate government has the power to remit the whole or any part of the punishment of a convict unconditionally or subject to certain conditions – Actual remission takes effect only after the convict accepts the conditions – There is an identical provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in form of section 473(1). [Paras 9, 17(i), 2] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – The power to grant remission – How to be exercised: Held: A constitution bench of Supreme Court in Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 1, while approving the view taken in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 3 SCC 294 held that, the decision to grant remission has to be well informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned – Convict cannot seek remission of sentence as of right – Factors including public interest, * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1449 Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors. the gravity and nature of the offences involved and antecedents of the convict can be looked into by the appropriate government as the power to grant remission is discretionary – Almost all the States including the State of Gujarat who is a respondent here have a written policy on grant of remission in order to avoid arbitrary use of this power. [Paras 10-11, 12, 17(ii), 17(iii)] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – Nature of the conditions that can be imposed by the appropriate government: Held: The conditions imposed must be fair, reasonable and stand the test of scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution – Conditions cannot be arbitrary as it will violate rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. [Paras 12, 17(iv)] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – Whether the condition requiring the convict to behave ‘decently’ for a period of two years after his release from jail is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution: Held: The condition number 1 imposed by the appropriate government required the convict to: (a) behave ‘decently’ for a period of two years after his release from jail and; (b) submit two respectable sureties to ensure that he does not commit the breach of peace and harmony of the society and does not threaten the complainant and the witnesses – The words ‘decent’ and ‘decency’ are not defined in CrPC or any other cognate legislation, it can mean different things to different people and differently in different times – This condition is thus vague, arbitrary, unclear, unambiguous and capable of having different interpretations – Hence the condition is unenforceable and hit by Article 14. [Paras 13, 18a] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) and 432(3) – Whether the condition providing for arrest and automatic revocation of remission of sentence if appellant commits any other cognizable offence or inflicts any serious injury to any citizen or property after his release, valid: Held: The Apex Court while dealing with Section 401 of the CrPC of 1898 (identical to Section 432(3) of CrPC of 1973 and Section 473(3) of BNSS), in Shaikh Abdul Azees vs. State of Karnataka (1977) 2 SCC 485, held that, the provision does not intend to automatically revive the sentence already remitted and the government is under no legal obligation to cancel such remission – This drastic power affecting the convict’s liberty has to be exercised only after due 1450 [2024] 10 S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.