In The Matter Of Sessions Trial No 203 Of 1995 Sardana Ghagra Alias Sardar Ghagra Vs

The instant Criminal Reference has been registered on the basis of Letter No.213 of 2016 dated 14^th June, 2016 from Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in connection with S.T. No.203 of 1995, which was decided vide judgment dated 01.06.1999 and the convict, Sardar Ghagra was held guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with fine of Rs.2,000/-

¶15

The sole point for reference of the matter is as under:-

¶16

The convict, Sardar Ghagra preferred an appeal against his aforesaid conviction and sentence vide Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1458 of 2005, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court vide judgement dated 28.04.2015 with modification on the point of conviction. The record of the case along with judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court was received before the trial court on 19.05.2015. After taking coercive steps for arrest of the convict, he was arrested and produced before the trial court on 03.06.2016 and sent to Mandal Kara, Chaibasa for serving the sentence. Thereafter, a petition was received by the Trial Court through Jail Superintendent that the convict, Sardar Ghagra has been legally released from the jail in view of “The State Sentence Review

¶17

( 2025:JHHC:33663)

¶18

Board’s” decision communicated vide Memo No.508 dated 29.01.2010 and I.G. (Prison), Jharkhand, Ranchi memo No.169 dated 08.02.2010 after depositing a fine amount on 21.03.2010. As such, a person, who has served the sentence cannot be again put up in the lock up for serving the sentence. Hence, vide order dated 13.06.2016, the concerned Trial Court released the convict, Sardar Ghagra on furnishing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with further undertaking to appear in person as and when called upon.

¶19

The concerned Trial Court has referred the above issue as to whether convict, Sardar Ghagra has served the sentence awarded to him or due to dismissal of the appeal, he may be directed to undergo sentence awarded to him.

¶20

I have heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Amicus Curiae at length, who has also pointed out the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. and also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Cr. Appeal No.2134 of 2017 (Jitendra @ Kalla Vs. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi) wherein it was held that “the power of remitting the sentence can be curtailed only if the appellate court put a condition that the convict will have no right to remission till the completion of a particular period or forever”.

¶21

First of all, the relevant provisions have to be extracted touching the issue under sections 433 of Cr.P.C. and 433 (A) of Cr.P.C:

¶22

“433. Power to commute sentence.- The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute-

¶23

(a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code

¶24

(b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine;

¶25

2

¶26

( 2025:JHHC:33663)

¶27

(c) a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term t which that person might have been sentence, or for fine;

¶28

(d) A sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine;

¶29

433A.-Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishment provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment”.

¶30

In the instant case, the appropriate Government has exercised the power of commutation of sentence in accordance with the aforesaid provisions. It appears that the convict, Sardar Ghagra has remained in custody for more than 14 years and also earned remission period. There is no whisper either in the judgment of Trial Court or the Appellate Court that the imprisonment for life awarded to the convict shall be without any remission. Therefore, merely because the appeal preferred by the convict, Sardar Ghagra has been dismissed on merits does not affect the power of appropriate Government to commute the sentence by granting remission in accordance with law. Therefore, the legal aspect is very much clear that mere dismissal of the appeal does not forfeit the benefits in the matter of commutation of sentence granted by appropriate Government unless there is specific bar in the judgment itself.

¶31

In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, the release of convict, Sardar Ghagra by granting remission by the State Government under the aegis of State Sentence Review Board cannot be affected by dismissal of appeal of

¶32

3

¶33

( 2025:JHHC:33663)

¶34

the convict. Therefore, no further action is required to be taken in the aforesaid matter.

¶35