Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(d), 21 – Illegal detention – Accused kept in prison beyond the Period of Imprisonment – The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 376 of IPC and Sections 3(ii)(v) and 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo imprisonment for one more year – High Court in appeal, confirmed the conviction but reduced his sentence of 12 years rigorous imprisonment to 7 years imprisonment – Further, it was ordered to compensate the victim by paying Rs.15,000/- within a period of six months – The appellant has undergone rigorous imprisonment for
10 years 03 months and 16 days with remission – The appellant was detained in custody exceeding the period of imprisonment in terms of the judgment of the High Court – Appellant approached Supreme Court, seeking compensation for being kept in prison beyond the period of sentence – Held: There is no justification for not complying with the judgment of the High Court reducing the sentence of the appellant – Violation of not only Art. 19(1)(d) but also Art. 21 of the Constitution of India – Appellant entitled to be compensated in terms of money – Compensation to the tune of Rs.7.5 Lakhs to be paid by the State holding that it is vicariously liable for the act/omission committed by its officers – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 386, 357 – Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual, 1968 - Rule 2(g) – Madhya Pradesh Prison Rules, 1968 - Rule 715. Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: This Court is not oblivious of the fact that the appellant herein was held guilty in a grave offence. But then, when a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final, the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment. When such a convict is detained beyond the actual release date it would be imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law and would thus, violate not only Article 19(d) but also Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This is what was suffered by the appellant for a very long period. Considering the fact that the appellant is a youth, this long and illegal imprisonment beyond the period of sentence, taking into account the long and illegal deprivation of the right to move freely and thereby, the violation of right under Article 19 (d) of the Constitution of India, the violation of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the mental agony and pain caused due to such extra, illegal detention, this Court of the view that the appellant is entitled to be compensated in terms of money. [Para 17][1188-CF] Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (1983) 4 SCC 141 : [1983] 3 SCR 508; Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1987 SC 1073 : [1987] 1 SCR 562; A.R. Antulay V. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 : [1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.