Rule 320 Of AP Prison Rules Or Section 57 Of IPC Does Not Limit Quantum Of Life Sentence, Incarceration Is For Remainder Of Convict's Life: AP HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a sentence of imprisonment for life shall mean that the prisoner shall be incarcerated for the remainder of his natural life and Section 57 of IPC and Rule 320(a) of A.P Prison Rules, 1979 (“the Rules”) do not reduce the sentence of life imprisonment of a convict nor create a right to be released before the end of the natural life of the prisoner.A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, while disposing of a writ petition seeking release of a prisoner who was initially awarded death sentence and was later commuted to imprisonment for life, and had served a sentence for 30 years, held,“It is contended that for the purposes of calculating remission and premature release, the period of sentence of life is 20 years and the prisoner has already served more than that period and would automatically be entitled to such release. This contention has to be rejected on three grounds. Firstly, the rules framed above do not reduce the term of a sentence of imprisonment for life and cannot be relied upon for such a proposition. Secondly, it is only when remission is given under section 432 of Cr.P.C., that the question of premature release can be taken up. Thirdly, Rule 320, even if it were applicable, does not provide for an automatic release, the rule only requires the advisory board to consider the request of the prisoner to give him premature release.”Facts:Initially, one S. Chalapathi Rao (“the prisoner”), alongwith one another, was convicted in 1993 of offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 392, 307, 341 and 440 of IPC for robbing passengers of an APSRTC bus in Guntur district, and setting fire to the bus, which resulted in the death of 23 persons, including a six year old girl. While the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, on 07.09.1995, awarded death penalty as punishment which was affirmed later by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court, the President had commuted the sentence of death to life imprisonment.The daughter of the prisoner filed a writ petition seeking release of her father from the central prison, Nellore, on the grounds that the prisoner had been in jail since 1993 and had completed roughly 30 years of actual imprisonment. The petitioner stressed on two pertinent issues- the right of the prisoner for grant of parole and his right for remission and release from jail.The petitioner argued that while the prisoner was never granted regular parole for one month as per his eligibility, he was granted emergency parole on four occasions. Additionally, the prisoner had enrolled himself into various degree courses, which he had completed and had reformed himself. On account of his good behavior, the head of the prison had recommended his release to the government. However, applications of parole submitted by the prisoner were continuously rejected. The petitioner also argued that as per Rule 320(A) of the A.P. Prisoner Rules, 1979, the prisoner was entitled to be released as his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment and the sentence works itself out upon completion of imprisonment for 20 years.The respondents argued that the prisoner was not entitled to be released as the special remission granted to the life convicted prisoners by the Government applies to prisoners who have been convicted with life imprisonment but not to the prisoners whose death sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. Even section 432 of CrPC authorises the Government to grant remission to a convict, and as per Section 433(a), the Government may commute a sentence of death for any other punishment provided by the IPC. Section 433(a), however, does not provide for grant of special remission, therefore, the prisoner was not entitled for special remission. Additionally, irrespective of the fact whether remission was permissible or not, it was urged that the conduct of the prisoner had been unsatisfactory and accordingly, he was not entitled to any remission.Thus, the Court was compelled to address the following issues- (i) what period of incarceration a person sentenced to imprisonment for life has to undergo, (ii) under what provisions of law can a prisoner be granted remission of the period of sentence, (iii) whether an application for remission of sentence should be considered according to the policy at the time of such application or whether the application should be considered in terms of the policy at the time when the prisoner was convicted and sentenced, if such policy is more conducive for his release, (iv) whether a prisoner can be released on the basis of the remission granted under the Rules, and (v) what are the conditions for grant of parole and whether the prisoner would be entitled for such parole?Findings:The Court relied on a host of cases, including Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra and Ors and Swamy Shraddhananda (2) v. State of Karnataka [(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 113], whereby,...

Rule 320 Of AP Prison Rules Or Section 57 Of IPC Does Not Limit Quantum Of Life Sentence, Incarceration Is For Remainder Of Convict's Life: AP HC

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rule 320 Of AP Prison Rules Or Section 57 Of IPC Does Not Limit Quantum Of Life Sentence, Incarceration Is For Remainder Of Convict's Life: AP HC

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers