Supreme Court Clarifies Sentence Commencement for Escaped Life Convicts: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Vijayanagaram Chinna Reddappa (2023)

Date of the Judgment: April 28, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 385
Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can a life convict who escapes custody and is later convicted for another offense, have their subsequent sentence run concurrently with the life sentence, especially when a remission has been granted for the life sentence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this intricate question in a recent judgment, clarifying the interplay between Sections 426 and 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The judgment clarifies the commencement of sentences for escaped life convicts who are subsequently convicted for another offense. The bench comprised Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, with the judgment authored by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Case Background

The case revolves around P. Reddy Bhaskar, a convict who was initially sentenced to life imprisonment on December 19, 2006, for an offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), relating to a murder that occurred on May 27, 2001. Bhaskar escaped from custody twice during his incarceration. The first escape resulted in approximately two years of self-attained freedom, and the second for about three months. Subsequently, he was also convicted in another case for kidnapping under Section 365 of the IPC and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment.

On August 14, 2022, the Government of Andhra Pradesh granted special remission to 175 life convicts, including Bhaskar, on the occasion of Independence Day. However, Bhaskar was not released because the prison authorities believed that his one-year sentence for kidnapping should commence after the remission of his life sentence. Bhaskar’s brother-in-law filed a writ of Habeas Corpus in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, contending that his continued detention was illegal. The High Court ruled in favor of the detenu, leading to the State’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in response to the writ of Habeas Corpus, ordered the release of the detenu, P. Reddy Bhaskar. The High Court held that the subsequent sentence of one year simple imprisonment should run concurrently with the life sentence, especially after the remission was granted. Aggrieved by the order, the State of Andhra Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the interplay between Section 426 and Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). These sections deal with the commencement of sentences for escaped convicts and offenders already sentenced for another offense, respectively.

Section 426 of the CrPC states:

“426. Sentence on escaped convict when to take effect.-(1) When a sentence of death, imprisonment for life or fine is passed under this Code on an escaped convict, such sentence shall, subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, take effect immediately.
(2) When a sentence of imprisonment for a term is passed under this Code on an escaped convict,-
(a) if such sentence is severer in kind than the sentence which such convict was undergoing when he escaped, the new sentence shall take effect immediately;
(b) if such sentence is not severer in kind than the sentence which such convict was undergoing when he escaped, the new sentence shall take effect after he has suffered imprisonment for a further period equal to that which, at the time of his escape, remained unexpired of his former sentence.
(3) For the purposes of sub-section (2), a sentence of rigorous imprisonment shall be deemed to be severer in kind than a sentence of simple imprisonment.”

Section 427 of the CrPC states:

“427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.-(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.
(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions (State of Andhra Pradesh):

• The State argued that since the detenu was an escaped convict, Section 426(2)(b) of the CrPC should apply.
• According to the State, the one-year simple imprisonment for kidnapping should commence only after the detenu serves a further period equal to the unexpired portion of his life sentence at the time of his escape.
• The State contended that the remission granted to the life convict does not mean that a portion of the life sentence remains unexpired in the same sense as in the case of other convicts.

Respondent’s Submissions (Vijayanagaram Chinna Reddappa):

• The respondent argued that Section 426(2)(b) of the CrPC does not apply to life convicts because no portion of a life sentence remains unexpired in a technical sense.
• The respondent contended that Section 427(2) of the CrPC should apply, which mandates that a subsequent sentence of imprisonment for a term should run concurrently with a previous life sentence.
• The respondent submitted that the High Court’s order was correct and the detenu should be released.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the sentence of one year simple imprisonment imposed on the detenu for the offense under Section 365 of the IPC should run concurrently with his life sentence, especially after the grant of remission on the life sentence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Deals with the sentence of escaped convicts.
• Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Deals with the sentence of an offender already sentenced for another offense.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court held that Section 426(2)(b) CrPC, which deals with escaped convicts, does not apply to life convicts because no portion of a life sentence remains unexpired in the technical sense.
• The Court applied Section 427(2) CrPC, which states that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Sections 426 and 427 of the CrPC, emphasizing the unique nature of life sentences and the intention of the law to provide clarity on the commencement of sentences. The Court recognized that a life sentence, unlike a fixed-term sentence, does not have an unexpired portion in the same technical sense. The Court also noted that while Section 426 deals with escaped convicts, it creates a conundrum for life convicts, and hence Section 427(2) should be applied.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that while Section 426 of the CrPC addresses escaped convicts, it does not adequately cover the case of a life convict who escapes and is later convicted for another offense. The Court stated that, “But insofar as a life convict is concerned, in law, no part of the sentence remains unexpired.” The Court further clarified that, “The remission granted by the Government to a life convict, cannot be taken to mean that there is some portion of the life sentence that remains unexpired in the same sense as in the case of other convicts.” Therefore, the Court concluded that Section 426(2)(b) of the CrPC does not apply to life convicts. Instead, the Court invoked Section 427(2) of the CrPC, which states that, “When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.” The Court emphasized that this provision provides the necessary guidance for handling subsequent sentences for life convicts.

Key Takeaways

• For escaped life convicts, subsequent sentences of imprisonment for a term will run concurrently with their life sentence.
• Section 426(2)(b) of the CrPC does not apply to life convicts because a life sentence does not have an unexpired portion in the technical sense.
• Section 427(2) of the CrPC applies to life convicts who receive subsequent sentences, ensuring concurrent running of sentences.
• Remission granted to life convicts does not alter the nature of the life sentence or create an “unexpired” portion.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the detenu, P. Reddy Bhaskar, be set at liberty forthwith.

Development of Law

The judgment clarifies the application of Sections 426 and 427 of the CrPC concerning escaped life convicts. The ratio decidendi is that Section 426(2)(b) does not apply to life convicts, and Section 427(2) should be invoked to ensure concurrent running of subsequent sentences. This interpretation provides clarity and consistency in the sentencing of life convicts who commit further offenses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Vijayanagaram Chinna Reddappa clarifies that Section 426(2)(b) of the CrPC does not apply to life convicts. Instead, Section 427(2) of the CrPC mandates that subsequent sentences of imprisonment for a term should run concurrently with the previous life sentence. The Court ordered the release of the detenu, affirming the High Court’s decision and providing a significant interpretation of the CrPC provisions.