CHHOTELALversusSTATE OF M.P.

                   [2011] 8 S.C.R. 239

                       CHHOTELAL                               A
                             v.
                      STATE OF M.P.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2006)
                      JULY 14, 2011
                                                               B
 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376 (2) and 302 - Rape and
murder of a young girl aged ten years - Trial court convicted
appellant-accused ulss. 376(2) and 302 and sentenced him C
to imprisonment for life with further clarification that the
sentence would continue for the remaining period of his entire
life - Order upheld by the High Court - Interference with -
Held: Not called for since the evidence against the appellant
appears to be fully credible - However, direction issued that o
the appellant would serve out the sentence of imprisonment
upto the end of his life subject to any remissions which the
Government may choose to give to the appellant - Sentence/
Sentencing. ·

    Mui/a v State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 508: 2010 (2) SCR       E
633 - relied               on.
                    Case Law Reference:
    2010 (2) SCR 633         Relied on.           Para 3
                                                               F
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 664 of.2006.

    From the" Judgment & Order dated 10.7.2003 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in CRLA No. 136 of 1992.   G

    Aishwarya Bhati, Harbans Lal Bajaj for the Appellant.
     Praveena Gautam, C.D. Singh, Vibha Datta Makhija for
the Respondent.
                          239                                  H
    240       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 8 S.C.R.     --
A         The following Order of the Court was delivered

                              ORDER
       1. The appellant Chhote Lal stands convicted· under
  Section 376(2) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having
B committed rape and murder of a young girl 10 years of age and
  has been sentenced by the trial court to imprisonment for life
  under both the provisions by the Sessions Court and it was
  further clarified that the sentence would continue for the
  remaining period of the entire life of the accused. An appeal
C was thereafter taken to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
  which has confirmed· the order of the Sessions Judge. This
  appeal has been filed in this Court as a jail petition.

   . 2. Mr. Harbans Lal Bajaj, the learned Amicus appointed
0 eiirlier did not put in appearance on the last several dates and
  even yesterday when the matter was called out. We had,
  accordingly, requested Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel.
  who was present in the Court to assist us in the matter and
  appointed her as an Amicus in place of Mr. Harbans Lal Bajaj.
E We have, accordingly, heard her as well as the State Counsel
  on the merits ofthe case.

        3. We have gone through the evidence with the assistance
  of the learned counsel and find no cause for interference on the
  facts of the case as the evidence against the appellant appears
F to be fully credible. We, however, feel that in the light of the
  judgment of this Court in Mui/a v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC
  508, some modification has to be made in the sentencing part
  of the impugned judgments. In the cited case, it has been
  observed that though it was open to the courts to award a
G sentence prescribing the length of incarceration but the power
  to cor:nmute the sentence or to grant remissions which rested
  with\t11e Government had to be respected. Paragraphs 85 and
  86 of the judgment read as under:-

               "85. We are in complete agreement with the above
H
              CHHOTELAL v. STATE OF M.P.                      . 241


     dictum of this Court. It is open to the sentencing court to       A
   · prescribe the length of incarceration. This is especially true
     in cases where death sentence has been replaced, by life
     imprisonment. The court should be free to determine the
     length of imprisonment which will suffice the off~nce
     committed. Thus we hold that despite the nature of the            B
     crime, the mitigating circumstances can allow us to
     substitute the death penalty with life sentence.

              86. Here we would like to note that the punishment
       of life sentence in this case must extend to their full life,   C
       subject to any remission by the Government for good
       reasons."

     4. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal but direct (in the
light of the aforesaid observations) that the appellant would ' '
serve out the sentence of imprisonment upto the e,rd of his. life D
but this directionwould be subject to any remissions·which the
Government may .choose to give under the circumstances to
the appellant. In this background, we issue a further direction
to the State Government that (as the appellant has been in
custody since the 10th January, 1989) to take a decision on E
the appellant's continued detention or release in accordance
with law within a period of six months from today.         ' ,

       5. Fee of the Amicus is fixed at Rs. 7,000/-.

N.J.                                           Appeal dismissed.       F