CHHOTELAL Vs STATE OF M.P.
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,GYAN SUDHA MISRA, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000664-000664 / 2006
Diary number: 1207 / 2006
Advocates: HARBANS LAL BAJAJ Vs
Crl.A. No. 664 of 2006 REPORTABLE 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 664 OF 2006
CHHOTE LAL ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P. ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. The appellant Chhote Lal stands convicted under
Section 376(2) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code for
having committed rape and murder of a young girl 10
years of age and has been sentenced by the trial court
to imprisonment for life under both the provisions by
the Sessions Court and it was further clarified that the
sentence would continue for the remaining period of the
Crl.A. No. 664 of 2006 REPORTABLE 2
entire life of the accused. An appeal was thereafter
taken to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which has
confirmed the order of the Sessions Judge. This appeal
has been filed in this Court as a jail petition.
2. Mr. Harbans Lal Bajaj, the learned Amicus
appointed earlier did not put in appearance on the last
several dates and even yesterday when the matter was
called out. We had, accordingly, requested Ms.
Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel who was present in the
Court to assist us in the matter and appointed her as an
Amicus in place of Mr. Harbans Lal Bajaj. We have,
accordingly, heard her as well as the State Counsel on
the merits of the case.
3. We have gone through the evidence with the
Crl.A. No. 664 of 2006 REPORTABLE 3
assistance of the learned counsel and find no cause for
interference on the facts of the case as the evidence
against the appellant appears to be fully credible. We,
however, feel that in the light of the judgment of this
Court in Mulla v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 508, some
modification has to be made in the sentencing part of
the impugned judgments. In the cited case, it has been
observed that though it was open to the courts to award
a sentence prescribing the length of incarceration but
the power to commute the sentence or to grant remissions
which rested with the Government had to be respected.
Paragraphs 85 and 86 of the judgment read as under:-
“85. We are in complete agreement with the above dictum of this Court. It is open to the sentencing court to prescribe the length of incarceration. This is especially true in cases where death
Crl.A. No. 664 of 2006 REPORTABLE 4
sentence has been replaced by life imprisonment. The court should be free to determine the length of imprisonment which will suffice the offence committed. Thus we hold that despite the nature of the crime, the mitigating circumstances can allow us to substitute the death penalty with life sentence.
86. Here we would like to note that the punishment of life sentence in this case must extend to their full life, subject to any remission by the Government for good reasons.”
4. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal but direct (in
the light of the aforesaid observations) that the
appellant would serve out the sentence of imprisonment
upto the end of his life but this direction would be
subject to any remissions which the Government may
choose to give under the circumstances to the appellant.
In this background, we issue a further direction to the
Crl.A. No. 664 of 2006 REPORTABLE 5
State Government that (as the appellant has been in
custody since the 10th January, 1989) to take a decision
on the appellant's continued detention or release in
accordance with law within a period of six months from
today.
5. Fee of the Amicus is fixed at `7,000/-.
......................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
.....................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
NEW DELHI JULY 14, 2011.