If an escapee who was previously serving a life sentence is later found guilty, the new sentence will run concurrently with the old one: Apex Court

Keywords: Apex Court, Sentence, Escape, Guilty, remission

In a recent case (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa), the Supreme Court freed a life offender who had been denied release after receiving a remission from the Andhra Pradesh government (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa).

 The court stated that a convicted felon who has escaped begins serving the remainder of his sentence before beginning his second conviction. However, it is hard to tell what the remaining sentence was for a lifer.

The second sentence would run concurrently with the first life sentence, according to the court, which relied on section 427(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As a result, the convict may be freed after receiving remission.

An appeal contesting a decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh ordering the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Kadapa to release a convict by the name of P. Reddy Bhaskar was being heard by the Supreme Court bench made up of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal.

The Supreme Court pointed out that a specific situation is covered by Section 426(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code: when a convicted person escapes and is subsequently caught. According to the clause, the sentence for a second or subsequent conviction won’t start until the escaped criminal has served a period of time equivalent to the amount of time left on their previous sentence at the time of escape. But “remaining time” has a different meaning for someone who has been given a life sentence. The example of a lifer does not entirely match the rule. It is impossible to gauge their remaining sentence in the same manner as others.

According to the court, no portion of a life sentence remains unfinished for a life criminal. The Government’s remission of a life sentence cannot be interpreted to suggest that a portion of the sentence is still in effect, as it would in the case of other criminals. A life sentence is a punishment for a lifetime. The judgement makes the curious claim that the remaining time on a life sentence is “known only to God (if you believe) and to the Government, if there is a policy of remission.”

The court then discusses Section 427(2) Cr.P.C., which presents a different viewpoint. It states that if someone already serving a life sentence for a crime is convicted again, the new sentence must run concurrently with the original life sentence. The court stated that although while Section 427 doesn’t deal with fugitive criminals specifically, it offers a way to deal with the difficulties brought on by the eternal nature of life sentences. 

“While Section 426 covers the case of an escaped convict, clause (b) of sub-section (2) thereof creates a dilemma with respect to life convicts,” the court concluded. However, despite not dealing with the situation of an escaped offender, Section 427 leaves considerable room for determining how a life sentence given on a subsequent conviction should be handled. 

The court decided that the High Court’s use of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. in this case was justified.

The application of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. by the High Court to the case at hand, the court stated,”is therefore completely in order, and the appeal ought to be dismissed. As a result, the appeal is denied. The detained person will be immediately released.

Written by- G. Nikitha, College name – KL UNIVERSITY, Semester- 9^th Semester, Legal Journalist intern under Legal Vidhiya

Admin