ARJUN JADAVversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

                 [2014] 6 S.C.R. 1067


                       ARJUN JADAV                               A
                              v.
            STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
           (Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 229 of 2004)
                       JULY 02, 2014.
                                                                 B
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND RANJANA
            PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]

     Sentence/Sentencing: Conviction and life imprisonment
of the writ petitioner - Mercy petitions made twice for C
premature release of petitioner but rejected - Superintendent
of Jail also strongly recommended reconsideration of case
of petitioner - Peti!ioner undergone custody of more than 20
years including period of remission and about 17 years of
actual custody - V\lrit petition seeking release - Held: Once a D
person is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment unless
imprisonment for life is commuted by competent authority, he
has to undergo imprisonment for whole of his life - In the
instant case, the case of petitioner was considered by the
Review Board constituted by the State of West Bengal which E
rejected the prayer - However, in view of the fact that the
petitioner has actually undergone more than 18 years of
imprisonment and the Superintendent requested for
reconsideration of his case and recommended his release,
if any application for remission is filed by the petitioner or on F
his behalf, the competent authority to place the same before
the Review Board for reconsidering his case for premature
release ~ Writ petition dismissed - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 57.

     The petitioner was arrested in a murder case on
5.3.1985. He was convicted for murder on 15.1.1991 and           G
sentenced to life imprisonment simplicitor. The
conviction and sentence were upheld by appellate courts.
The wife of the petitioner made mercy petitions twice to

                          1067                                   H
         1068   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 6 S.C.R.


     A the Competent Authority of the State for premature
       release of the petitioner but the same were rejected. The
       Superintendent of the Central Jail also wrote a letter to
       the State Government for reconsideration of the case of
       petitioner and strongly recommended his release. The
     B State Government did not give any response. In the
       meantime, the petitioner underwent custody of more than
       20 years including the period of remission and about 17
       years of actual custody.

             He filed a writ petition under Article 32 in the nature
     C of habeas corpus from custody. The petitioner
       contended that the length of duration of the imprisonment
       for life is equivalent to 20 years of imprisonment and that
       too subject to further remission admissible under the law;
       that the petitioner is liable to be released under Rule 751
     D (C) of the West Bengal Jail Code. Reliance was also
       placed on the explanation to Section 61 of the West
       Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992 whereunder the
       imprisonment for life was equated to a term of 20 years
       of imprisonment.
     E
            On 7 .1.2005, the Supreme Court passed order
       directing to list the matter after decision in W.P (Crl.)
       No.45of1998 titled Md. Munna v. UOI since the arguments
       in the said case were already concluded and judgment
     F was awaited. By the said order, the Supreme Court
       further directed to release the petitioner on parole on his
'\     furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the
       satisfaction of the Magistrate pending decision of this
       case. Md. Munna v. UOI was, however, dismissed on
     G 16.9.2005.
             Dismissing the writ petition, the Court

           HELD: Once a person is sentenced to undergo life
       imprisonment unless imprisonment for life is commuted·
     H by the competent authority, he has to undergo
    ARJUN JADAV v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL               1069

imprisonment for the whole of his life. It is equally well A
settled that Section 57 IPC does not in any way limit the
punishment of imprisonment of life to a term of 20 years.
In the instant case, the mercy petitions filed by the
petitioner's wife were rejected twice. The case of the
p-etitioner was considered by the Review Board B
constituted by the State of West Bengal, which rejected
the prayer. Therefore, no relief can be granted by this
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
However, in view of the fact that the petitioner has actually
 undergone more than 18 years of imprisonment; the c
Superintendant, Alipore Central Jail of his own wrote a
 letter dated 18.09.2003 requesting for reconsideration of
the case of the petitioner'clnd recommending release of
the petitioner. If any application for remission is filed by
the petitioner or on his behalf, the Competent Authority 0
should place the same before the Review Board ·and
which would reconsider the case of the petitioner for
 premature release in accordai:ice with law and guidelines
 issued by the State. The appropriate Government would
.be at liberty to pass appropriate order iii accordance with E
 law. The petitioner was released on bail by an order
 passed by this Court on 7.01.2005: l'hat,order Is vacated.
 The respondents would be at liberty to take the petitioner
 into custody and as regards remission the State
 Government may pass any app.ropriate order in
 accordance with law. [Paras 13 to 15] [1077-A, G]            F

      Mohd. Munna v. Union of India & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 417:
 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 233; Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of
 Maharashtra, (AIR) 1961 SC 600: 1961 SCR 440 ; Naib Singh
 v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1983) 2 SCC 454: 1983 (2) SCR      G
;770; Kishori Lal v. Emperor (AIR) 32 1945 PC 64; Gopal
 Vinayak Godse v. State ·of Maharashtra (AIR) 1961 SC 600:
 1961 SCR 440; Life Convict Bangal alias Khoka alias

                                                               H
    1070    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014) 6 S.C.R.


A Prasanta Sen v. B.K. Srivastava and Ors. (2013) 3 SCC
  425:2013 (3) SCR 392 - referred to.

                         Case Law Reference

        2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 233 Referred to             Para 10
B
        1961 SCR 440                  Referred to       Para 11
        1983 (2) SCR 770              Referred to       Para 12
        (AIR) 32 1945 PC 64           Referred to       Para 12
c       1961 SCR 440                  Referred to       Para 12
        2013 (3) SCR 392              Referred to       Para 13

         CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Write Petition
    (Criminal) No. 229 of 2004
D
        Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

        Naveen Sehrawat, Santosh Singh for the Petitioner.

E       Mabir S. Bose, Saakaar Sardana, Shagun Matta, Anip
    Sachthey for the Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J : 1. The
F petitioner, who was convicted for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC,
  has preferred this writ petition under Article 32 of the
  Constitution of India in the nature of habeas corpus for setting
  the petitioner at liberty from the illegal custody in the prison/
  correctional Home.
G       2. The petitioner who was made an accused in a murder
    case no.S.T 3(9) for offence u/s 302/34 IPC, was arrested on
    5.03.1985. According to the petitioner, he has undergone
    conviction in custody of the respondent, which should be
    counted towards sentence are as follows:
H
    ARJUN JADAV v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                     1071
     [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

    Period                  Year          Month     Days             A

    5.3: 1985-20.6.1986      1            3         15

    15.1.1987-22.9.1988 1                 8         7

    26.4.1990-22.9.1990                   4         26               B

    Total                    3            6         18

      3. After trial, the petitioner was convicted u/s 302/34 IPC
vide judgment dated 15.01.1991 along with another co-accused         C
Partap Praharaj, who according to the petitioner, fired one gun
shot on the abdomen of the deceased and was sentenced to
"imprisonment for life simplicitor" (not rigorous imprisonment
for life) by the Court of IXth Additional Session Judge, Alipore,
Calcutta.
                                                                     D
      4. Against the conviction, the petitioner and co-accused
filed Criminal Appeal No.56 of 1991 before Calcutta High Court
which was dismissed on 9.04.1992. Thereafter, special !eave
petition against their conviction was also not entertained by this
Court.                                                               E

     5. Further case of the petitioner is that he became eligible
under Rule 591 (1-4) of the West Bengal Jail Code for
considering his case for premature release under 14 years
Rule, including remission, which according to the petitioner
should be 10 years of actual imprisonment plus 4 years
                                                                     F
remissiqn. Notwithstanding the law laid down in the West
Bengal Jail Code and law laid down by this Court, the case of
the petitioner was not considered and thereby respondents are
violating his statutory rights and provisions.
                                                                     G
      6. In the year 2001, the wife of the petitioner made a mercy
petition to the Competent Authority of the State for premature
release of the petitioner but the same was rejected by the State
Government on 12.4.2002 although the petitioner had a
consistent good record in Jail/Correctional Home and his case        H
    1072     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 6 S.C.R.


A was recommended by the Prison Authority for his release.
  Another mercy petition preferred by petitioner's wife was also
  rejected by the State Government. The Superintendent, Alipore
  Central Jail of his own wrote a letter dated 18.9.2003 to the
  State Government for reconsideration of the case of petitioner
B and strongly recommended his release. Thereafter nothing was
  heard from the State Government.                 ·

       7. In the meantime, the petitioner has undergone custody
  for more than 20 years including the period of remission and
  about 17 years of actual custody and, therefore, it is alleged
C that his detention has become unlawful and illegal.

       8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
  length of duration of the imprisonment for life is equivalent to
  20 years of imprisonment and that too subject to further
D remission admissible under the law. The petitioner is liable to
  be released under Rule 751 (C) of the West Bengal Jail Code.
  Reliance was also placed on the explanation to Section 61 of
  the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992 (West Bengal
  Ac~ XXXll of 1992) whereunder the imprisonment for life is
E equated to a term of 20 years of imprisonment.

         9. On 7.1.2005, this Court directed to list the matter after
    decision in W.P (Crl.) No.45of1998 titled Md. Munna v. Union
    of India & Ors. since learned counsel for the petitioner informed
    that the arguments in the said case have already been
F   concluded and judgment was awaited. By the said order, this
    Court further directed to release the petitioner on parole on his
    furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the
    satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore (24 Parganas,
    District Kolkata-27) pending decision of this case.
G
       10. The aforesaid Writ Petition (Crl.) No.45 of 1998 was
  heard with another Writ Petition (Crl.) No.SO of 2003. In the said
  case similar argument was made that the length of the duration
  of the imprisonment of life is equivalent to 20 years of
H imprisonment and that too subject to further remission
    ARJUN JADAV v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                    1073
     [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
admissible under the law. In the said case reliance was also        A
placed on Rule 751 (c) of the West Bengal Jail Code and
explanation to Section 61 of the West Bengal Correctional
Services Act, 1992 where under the imprisonment for life is
equated to a term of 20 years imprisonment.
                                                                    B
    The aforesaid writ petitions were dismissed by this Court
on 16.09.2005, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 417, Mohd. Munna
v. Union of India & Ors.

      11. Similar issue was considered by Constitutional Bench
of this Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra,       C
(AIR) 1961 SC 600. In the said case this Court held that the
sentence of imprisonment for life is not for any definite period
and the imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be treated as
imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the
convicted person's natural life. In paragraph 5, the Court          D
observed:

    "5. ... It does not say that transportation for life shall be
    deemed to be transportation for twenty years for all
    purposes; nor does the amended section which                    E
    substitutes the words "imprisonment for life" for
    "transportation for life" enable the drawing of any such al/-
    embracing fiction. A sentence of transportation for life or
    imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as
    transportation or imprisonment for the whole of the
    remaining period of the convicted person's natural life."       F

     In paragraph 8, this Court held:

    "8. Briefly stated the legal position is this: Before Act 26
    of 1955 a sentence of transportation for life could be          G
    undergone by a prisoner by way of rigorous imprisonment
    for life in a designated prison in India. After the said Act,
    such a convict shall be dealt with in the same manner
    as one sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the same
    term. Unless the said sentence is commuted or remitted          H
    1074   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 6 S.C.R.


A      by appropriate authority under the relevant provisions of
       the Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure, a
       prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound in law
       to serve the life term in prison. The Rules framed under
       the Prisons Act enable such a prisoner to earn
B      remissions-ordinary, special and State-and the said
       remissions will be given credit towards his term of
       imprisonment. For the purpose of working out the
       remissions the sentence of transportation for life is
       ordinarily equated with a definite period, but it is only for
c      that particular purpose and not for any other purpose. As
       the sentence of transportation for life or its prison
       equivalent; the life imprisonment, is one of indefinite
       duration, the remissions so earned do not in practice help
       such a convict as it is not possible to predicate (sic
       predict) the time of his death. That is why the Rules
D
       provide for a procedure to enable the appropriate
       Government to remit the sentence under Section 401 of
       the Code of Criminal Procedure on a consideration of the
       relevant factors, including the period of remissions
       earned. The question of remission is exclusively within
E      the province of the appropriate Government; and in this
       case it is admitted that, though the appropriate
       Government made certain remissions under Section 401
       of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it did not remit the
       entire sentence. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner
F      has not yet acquired any right to release. "

       12. In Mohd. Munna v. Union of India and others (supra)
  referring to decisions of this Court in Naib Singh v. State of
  Punjab & Ors. (1983) 2 SCC 454, Privy Council decision in
G Kishori Lal v. Emperor (Al R) 32 1945 PC 64 and Constitutional
  Bench decision in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of
  Maharashtra, ·(AIR) 1961 SC 600 this Court held: ·

        "8. The above contention of the petitioner's counsel is
        only to be rejected. The imprisonment of the life convicts
H
ARJUN JADAV v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                      1075
  [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
are being carried out on the strength of the order passed         A
by the court. The provisions contained in the Prisoners
Act are only procedural in nature. The preamble to the
Act itself states that the Act is meant to consolidate the
law relating to prisoners confined by order of a court and
Section 32 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 specifically says           8
about the persons under sentence of transportation and
when the punishment of transportation itself was deleted,
the provisions of Section 32 regarding the temporary
custody of the prisoners, there is no relevance for the
appointed places within the State or outside the State for        C
a person under sentence of transportation. The prison
authorities are bound to keep the persons who are
sentenced to imprisonment for life in jails. Of course,
some of the provisions in the Prisoners "Act, 1900 were
not suitably amended so as to be in conformity with the
sentence of life imprisonment introduced by Act 26 of             0
 1955. That does not make the detention illegal."

9 .................. Therefore, it is clear that if a person is
sentenced to transportation for a term, the same is
converted to rigorous imprisonment for the same                   E
duration. Naturally, the transportation for life will only be
treated as rigorous imprisonment for life.

10. If a portion of the period of transportation for life is to
be treated as sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the
                                                                  F
same term, naturally, the entire· transportation period is
to be treated as "rigorous imprisonment for life".
Imprisonment for life is a class of punishment different
from ordinary imprisonment which could be of two
descriptions, namely, "rigorous" or "simple". It was
unnecessary for the legislature to specifically mention           G
that the imprisonment for life would be rigorous
imprisonment for life as it is imposed as punishment for
grave offences. "

"16 ............. We are bound by the above dicta laid down       H
    1076     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A       by the Constitution Bench and we hold that life
        imprisonment is not equivalent to imprisonment for
        fourteen years or for twenty years as contended by the
        petitioner.

        17. Thus, all the contentions raised by the petitioner fail
B       and the petitioner is not entitled to be released on any
        of the grounds urged in the writ petition so long as there
        is no order of remission passed by the appropriate
        Government in his favour. We make it clear that our
        decision need not be taken as expression of our view that
c       the petitioner is not entitled to any remission at all. The
        appropriate Government would be at liberty to pass any
        appropriate order of remission in accordance with law. "

          13. Similar view was taken by this Court in Life Convict
o   Bangal alias Khoka alias Prasanta Sen v. B.K. Srivastava and
    others, (2013) 3 sec 425, This Court while defined meaning
    of life imprisonment reiterated that unless properly remitted by
    competent authority, life imprisonment means imprisonment for
    entire lifetime of convict, this Court held:
E        "18. It is clear that neither Section 57 /PC nor the
         Explanation to Section 61 of the WB. Act lay down that
         a life imprisonment prisoner has to be released after
         completion of 20 years. 20 years mentioned in the
         Explanation to Section 61 of the WB. Act is only for the
F        purpose of ordering remission. If the State Government
         taking into consideration various aspects refused to grant
         remission of the whole period then the petitioner cannot
       . take advantage of the above Explanation and even
         Section 57 /PC and seek for premature release. Further,
G        the question of remission of the entire sentence or a part
         of it lies within the exclusive domain of the appropriate
         Government under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal
         Procedure, 1973 and neither Section 57 /PC nor any
         rules or local Acts (in the case on hand, the WB. Act)
H        can stultify the effect of the sentence of life imprisonment
    ARJUN JADAV v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                    1077
     [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
     given by the Court under /PC. To put it clear, once a A
     person is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment unless
     imprisonment for life is commuted by the competent
     authority, he has to undergo imprisonment for the whole
     of his life. It is equally well settled that Section 57 /PC
     does not, in any way, limit the puni~hment of B
     imprisonment for life to a term of 20 years."
                                      '
      14. In the present case, the mercy    petitions filed by the
petitioner's wife were rejected twice. The case of the petitioner
was considered by the Review Board constituted by the State C
of West Bengal, which rejected the prayer. Therefore, no relief
can be granted by this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner has
actually undergone more than 18 years of imprisonment; the
Superintendant. Alipore Central Jail of his own wrote a letter
dated 18.09.2003 requested for reconsideration of the case of 0
the petitioner and recommended release of the petitioner. We
are of the view that if any application for remission is filed by
the petitioner or on behalf of the petitioner, the Competent
Authority place the same before the Review Board and which
will reconsider the case of the petitioner for premature release E
in accordance with law and guidelines issued by the State. The
appropriate Government would be at liberty to pass appropriate
order in accordance with law.

    15. The petitioner was released on bail by an order              F
passed by this Court on 7 .01.2005. We vacate that order. The
respondents would be at liberty to take the petitioner into
custody and as regards remission the State Government may
pass any appropriate order in accordance with law.

    16. The Writ Petition is dismissed with aforesaid                G
observations.

Devika Gujral                             Writ petition dismissed.