'Detention Beyond Release Date Violates Article 21' : Supreme Court Grants Rs 7.5 Lakh Compensation To Convict Kept In Prison In Excess Of Sentence Period

The Supreme Court has directed the State of Chhattisgarh to pay Rs 7.5 Lakhs as compensation to a rape convict who was kept in prison beyond the period of sentence.

"When a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final, the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment.", the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar observed in a judgment delivered in May 2022 (but uploaded recently).

Bhola Kumar was convicted in a rape case and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. On 19 July 2018, the Chhattisgarh High Court confirmed his conviction, but reduced the sentence to 7 years of rigorous punishment. While considering his special leave petition, the Supreme Court noted that he had undergone 10 years 03 months and 16 days of custody as revealed from the custody certificate. Taking serious note of this, Superintendent of Central Jail, Ambikapur, was directed to file affidavit.

In his affidavit, the Superintendent of Central Jail submitted that the total sentence undergone (excluding the remission period) was only 8 years 01 month and 29 days and that since he had failed to pay the compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the victim, as directed under the impugned judgment, he was to undergo imprisonment by one year over and above the period of 7 years. It was also stated that the High Court judgment was not communicated to jail authorities and on being communicated the order dated 4th March, 2022 passed by the Supreme Court on 10th March, 2022 immediate action was taken.

How can the respondent feign ignorance about the judgment of the High Court dated 19.7.2018, reducing the sentence imposed on the appellant, the bench observed. Referring to the affidavit and other materials on record, the bench found that he had suffered imprisonment in excess of what was he was to suffer legally.

The court, therefore, observed:

"We are not oblivious of the fact that the appellant herein was held guilty in a grave offence. But then, when a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final, the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment. When such a convict is detained beyond the actual release date it would be imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law and would thus, violate not only Article 19(d)but also Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This is what was suffered by the appellant for a very long period.

Considering the fact that the appellant is a youth, this long and illegal imprisonment beyond the period of sentence, taking into account the long and illegal deprivation of the right to move freely and thereby, the violation of right under Article 19 (d) of the Constitution of India, the violation of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the mental agony and pain caused due to such extra, illegal detention, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be compensated in terms of money"

The court thus passed an order granting compensation to the tune of Rs.7.5 Lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) to be paid by the State.

"Without making any observation as to his civil remedy, we think it only just and proper to pass an order granting compensation to the tune of Rs.7.5 Lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) to be paid by the State holding that it is vicariously liable for the act/omission committed by its officers in the course of employment. We also make it clear that while holding the State vicariously liable as above the State must have recourse against the erred officer(s)."

Case details

Bhola Kumhar vs State Of Chhattisgarh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589 | CrA 937 OF 2022 | 9 May 2022

Coram: Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar

Headnotes

Summary - Rape convict kept in prison beyond the period of sentence - When a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final, the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment - Compensation to the tune of Rs.7.5 Lakhs to be paid by the State holding that it is vicariously liable for the act/omission committed by its officers in the course of employment.

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 19(1)(d) , 21 - When a convict is detained beyond the actual release date it would be imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law and would thus, violate not only Article 19(1) (d) but also Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 386 (e) - Power to make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper would be available, of course in appropriate cases falling under any of the four categories of appeals mentioned under clauses (a) to (d) - The twin provisos under clause (d) carry restrictions in the matter of exercise of power under clause (e), with respect to enhancement of sentence and infliction of punishment - The power thereunder can be exercised only in rare cases. (Para 18)

Interpretation of Statutes - All interpretations must subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act - This is applicable while interpreting any provision in any statute especially when the power under that provision is conferred to pass orders that may be just or proper-  Referred to Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1987 SC 1073. (Para 18)

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 142 - Court can grant appropriate relief when there is some manifest illegality or where some palpable injustice is shown to have resulted. Such a power can be traced either to Article 142 of the Constitution of India or powers inherent as guardian of the Constitution - Referred to A.R. Antulay V. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602. (Para 19)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment