The Supreme Court has reiterated that detention of inmates in prison beyond the release date is violative of Right to Life under Article 21.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice CT Ravikumar in view of the above awarded ₹7.5 lakhs as compensation in Special Leave Petition filed.
Brief Facts of the Case
The appellant was made to stand the trial for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (ii) (v) and 3(1) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 0,000/- for the conviction for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
It was the case that the accused despite being acquitted by the Court of Sessions on 03.06.1968 was released from the jail only on 16.10.1982, idest, more than 14 years since his acquittal.
A Habeas Corpus petition was then filed before the court, seeking the release of on the ground of detention in the jail is unlawful. Even though Rudul Sah was acquitted by the court of Sessions, was released from the jail that is after more than 14 years since his acquittal.
The Court then held that that the state must repair the damage done by its office to the petitioner’s rights as it may have recourse against those officers.
The Counsel contended that the appellant has suffered imprisonment for a period of 10 years 03 months and 16 days with remission and later 02 years 05 months and 26 days was the jail remission period .
Supreme Court's Observation
The Court was of the view that the present case is an example of continuance of contumacious act on the part of a State Government (of course, its officials) in keeping a convict in incarceration beyond the period of sentence of imprisonment, unmindful of the final verdict of the Court.
"Such an act is injudicious and indefensible when his/her continued confinement is uncalled for in connection with any other case. This kind of levity cannot be viewed with laxity and it is time to consider it on the legit. Freedom of movement can be curtailed or taken away by imprisonment or detention ordained after due process of law and in accordance with law. Imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law would violate Article 19(d) as well as the right under Article 21, of the Constitution of India."
The Court found out that the sentence of the accused was reduced to 07 years from 12 years after appeal. Although, he was supposed to face incarnation for one additional year on default of fine, the Court was disturbed by the purposeful omission to make any mention about the period of remission to which the appellant was entitled to.
The Court was of the view that it requires to be taken seriously not solely due to the applicability of the afore-mentioned Prison Rules but on account of certain other aspects as well. It concluded that the appellant had suffered imprisonment in excess of what was he was to suffer legally.
The Court was also baffled at the State's feigning ignorance about the judgment of the High Court for two years.
"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."
Noting that the appellant suffers from the same, the Court deemed it appropriate to compensate him considering his youth, mental agony and pain caused due to such extra, illegal detention.
"The appellant is a youth and he suffered long and illegal deprivation of fundamental rights besides the mental agony and pain on account of such extra, illegal detention. Is it not a case inviting a consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper."
The Court mentioned Ambica Quarry Works & ANR Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, 1986 Latest Caselaw 264 SC held that ‘all interpretations must sub- serve and help implementation of the intention of the Act’. Reference was also made to A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak & ANR, 1988 Latest Caselaw 123 SC
CASE TITLE: Bhola Kumhar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
CASE DETAILS: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 937 OF 2022
CORAM: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice CT Ravikumar
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
