| CASE NAME | Chatar Singh V. State of M.P. |
| EQUIVALENT CITATION | 2006 SCC Online SC 1280 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | November 24, 2006 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| CASE NUMBER | Criminal appeal No. 623 of 2005 |
| CASE TYPE | Criminal Appeal |
| PETITIONER | Chatar Singh |
| RESPONDENT | State of MP |
| BENCH | Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Markandey Katju |
| REFERRED | Sections 31 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 364, 365, 120- B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appeal was filed in front of the apex court regarding the appellant’s conviction by the trial court, that is, the Sessions Judge and the High Court at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The factual matrix involve the appellant who was convicted by the above two courts for kidnapping two boys of Ramakant Katiyar, Sushil Kumar and Sudhir Kumar of the age group 10 to 12 years. They went to school on 29/12/1994 at 7:30am and had to return by 1:30 pm but there was no sign of theirs till 5:30 pm, a search was started at the very moment. After the father returned home, he was informed by his wife that Gulabchandra Gour, one of the classmates of the boys came to the house and told that Satyendra had asked him to return the bag to the family. Upon hearing this, sons’ father went to Satyendra’s house to inquire about it and thereupon he was informed that Sudhir Kumar had handed him the bag and stated that he would go to the farm. Post all this, an FIR was lodged. Upon investigating, the chowkidar of the school, Ramesh Kumar found wearing apparels and a letter that demanded ransom of Rs. 2000, this was handed to the police.
Next day, Prakash Chandra Sharma came to the house of Ramakant and handed him a letter of his name which stated that he had committed a grave error by informing the police and mentioned that the dead body of Sunil Kumar was thrown in the nallah behind the durgha. A search was made but no dead body was found. In another letter, a demand of Rs. 10, 000 was made. A dead body was found of Sunil Kumar on 06/01/1995. In one more letter delivered, it was again a demand of ransom but of Rs. 20,000 and written that if this amount was not paid, Sudhir Kumar would have the same fate as his brother. Ultimately, the dead body of Sudhir Kumar was found.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the conviction made was valid?
- Did the courts commit any error while passing the order of conviction regarding the punishment?
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONERS
- The learned counsel had submitted that the appellant was apprehended and he was prosecuted under sections 302[1], 201[2], 364[3], 365[4] and 120- B[5] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- He further submitted that there was no material on record to show that the victims were killed by the appellant.
- Again, it was contended that no evidence was found as to whether they were kidnapped for ransom or murder.
- He lastly submitted that the lower courts proceeded with the conviction on the two letters which were proved to be written by the appellant.
- He also submitted that the lower courts committed an error in sentencing the appellant to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment in view of section 31 [6]of the CrPC, 1973.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
- The learned counsel argued that the victims were missing and one after the other were murdered hence the accused should be charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well.
- The counsel also stated about the two letters which had the writing of the accused.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The bench hearing the contentions was contained of two, Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Markandey Katju, the judgement was delivered by S.B. Sinha.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court after going through the orders delivered by the Sessions Court and the High Court fully appreciated their words that such cases should not be dealt with leniency but at the same time condemned them of ignoring the provision of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The proviso clearly stated that the accused could not have been sentenced for a term longer than fourteen years if convicted of more than one offence in the same trial and an aggregate of all the punishments should be given and it should not proceed more than fourteen years.
The court further refereed to Kamalanantha V. State of T.N.[7], wherein the court held that life imprisonment can be subject to consecutive sentence but it was observed, “Regarding the sentence, the trail court resorted to Section 31 CrPC and ordered the sentence to run consecutively, subject to proviso (a) of the said section.”
The same question of section 31 came up in the constitution bench of K. Prabhakaran V. P. Jayarajan[8].
In another case Zulfiwar Ali V. State of U.P.[9], the same issue was raised
The opening words “In the case of consecutive sentences” in sub-s. 31(2) make it clear that this sub- section refers to a case in which “consecutive sentences” are ordered. After providing that in such a case if an aggregate of punishment for several offences is found to be in excess of punishment which the court is competent to inflict on a conviction of single offence, it shall not be necessary for the court to send the offender for trial before a higher court. After making such a provision, proviso (a) is added to this sub-section to limit the aggregate of sentences which such a court pass while making the sentences consecutive. That is this proviso has provided that in no case the aggregate of consecutive sentences passed against an accused shall exceed 14 years. In the instant case the aggregate of the two sentences passed against the appellant being 28 years clearly infringes the above proviso. It is accordingly not liable to be sustained.”
Hence, the court finally concluded that Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 should have been considered by the lower courts. The maximum sentence can only be fourteen years and that only the convicted has already been in custody for more than twelve years. The appeal was allowed and ordered that appellant should be released if not needed with any other case.
CONCLUSION
The lower courts should always take necessary steps following every bit of the procedure so that no one is denied of the justice even if it pertains to the accused because they too have a right more importantly fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India, 1950.
[1] S. 302, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
[2] S. 201, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
[3] S. 364, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
[4] S. 365, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
[5] S. 120-B, The Indian Penal Code,1860.
[6] S. 31, The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
[7] Kamalanantha V. State of T.N., (2005) 5 SCC 194.
[8] K. Prabhakaran V. P. Jayarajan, (2005) 1 SCC 754.
[9] Zulfiwar Ali V. State of U.P. (1986) AII LJ 1177.
WRITTEN BY SHRIYANSHI, AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW, AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA
