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.