Summary
A life convict who had twice escaped custody was granted special remission by the State but was kept in jail on the footing that his later one-year sentence for kidnapping would start running only after the remission. The Supreme Court held that Section 426(2)(b) CrPC, which postpones a new sentence until the escaped convict serves the unexpired part of his earlier sentence, cannot apply to a life convict because no part of a life sentence is technically 'unexpired'; the case falls under Section 427(2) CrPC, so the later sentence ran concurrently and the High Court was right to order his release.
Issues
- Whether, in the case of an escaped life convict later sentenced to a term of imprisonment, Section 426(2)(b) CrPC requires the subsequent sentence to take effect only after he has served the portion of his life sentence that remained unexpired at the time of his escape.
- Whether Section 427(2) CrPC governs the case so that the subsequent term sentence runs concurrently with the life sentence, making the convict's continued detention after the grant of remission illegal.
Provisions considered
- Section 426(2)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The clause postpones a less severe new sentence on an escaped convict until he has served a further period equal to what remained unexpired of his former sentence; the Court held it cannot embrace a life convict, since no portion of a life sentence remains unexpired in the technical sense.
- Section 427(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Where a person already undergoing imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to a term or to life, the subsequent sentence runs concurrently with the life sentence; the Court applied this provision, as the High Court had, to the detenu's one-year sentence for kidnapping.
- Sections 302 and 365, Indian Penal Code, 1860The detenu was serving life imprisonment under Section 302 and had been separately sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment under Section 365; the question was how the second sentence ran against the first.
Held
- A life sentence is a sentence for life; a grant of remission does not mean that some identifiable portion of the life sentence remained unexpired in the sense used for other convicts. Section 426(2)(b) CrPC therefore does not cover an escaped life convict, since no portion of his sentence remains unexpired in the technical sense.
- Although Section 427 CrPC does not deal with escaped convicts, Section 427(2) supplies the rule for a subsequent sentence imposed on a life convict: it runs concurrently with the life sentence. The High Court correctly applied Section 427(2), and once remission was granted the detenu's continued detention for the one-year sentence was illegal.
Result
Appeal by the State dismissed; High Court's habeas corpus order upheld; the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith. Pending applications disposed of.