THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANRversusVIJAYANAGARAM CHINNA REDDAPPA

                        [2023] 5 S.C.R. 485                              485


          THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR                              A
                                  v.
           VIJAYANAGARAM CHINNA REDDAPPA
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 1313 of 2023)
                                                                         B
                          APRIL 28, 2023
  [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.426(2)(b), 427(2) –
Interplay between – Held: While s.426 covers the case of an escaped
convict, clause (b) of sub-section (2) thereof creates a conundrum       C
in respect of life convicts – But s.427, though does not deal with the
case of an escaped convict, provides enough room for finding out
how a sentence imposed on a subsequent conviction, in respect of a
life convict, should be handled – Application of s.427(2) by the
High Court to the case on hand is perfectly in order – Detenu to be      D
set at liberty – Sentencing.
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1313 of 2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2022 of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in WP No. 36742 of 2022.                   E


      Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, K V Girish Chowdary, T Vijaya Bhaskar
Reddy, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Ms. Niti Richhariya, Advs. for the
Appellants.                                                              F
       Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv., Pai Amit, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj,
Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Abhiyudaya Vats, Ms. Nandita K. Nair, Ms.
Pratishtha C. B., Advs. for the Respondent.
      The following Order of the Court was passed:
                                                                         G
                              ORDER
      Leave granted.
      The State of Andhra Pradesh has come up with the above appeal,
challenging an order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra
                                                                         H
                                 485
486             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     Pradesh issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Superintendent
      of the Central Prison, Kadapa to set at liberty, a convict by name P.
      Reddy Bhaskar (Convict No.5357).
             We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the State of
      Andhra Pradesh and Mr. Seshadri Naidu, the learned senior counsel for
B     the respondent.
             The detenu was prosecuted in Sessions Case No.139/2006 for an
      offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”)
      relating to a murder that took place on 27.05.2001. By a judgment dated
      19.12.2006, the detenu was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
C     The conviction and punishment were confirmed by the High Court on
      appeal and the same has attained finality.
             It appears that the detenu escaped from custody twice during his
      incarceration, but was apprehended later. It is the case of the State that
      the detenu enjoyed self-attained freedom for about two years pursuant
D     to the first escape and for about three months pursuant to the second
      escape.
              It appears that immediately following the conviction for the offence
      under Section 302 IPC, the detenu was also convicted in another case in
      Case No.260/2006 for an offence of kidnapping under Section 365 IPC.
E     In this case, the detenu was convicted and imposed simple imprisonment
      for one year.
             By G.O.Ms. No.121 dated 14.08.2022, the Government of Andhra
      Pradesh granted special remission to 175 life convicts on the occasion
      of the Independence Day. Without giving him any opportunity for a third
F     escape, the Government set him at liberty under the said Government
      order on 15.08.2022.
             Even after the issue of the Government order, the detenu was not
      released from jail on the ground that the sentence of imprisonment
      awarded in Case No.260/2006 should start running from the date of
G     grant of remission in the first case. The detenu’s brother-in-law therefore
      approached the High Court by way of a writ of Habeas Corpus
      contending that the continued detention of the detenu after the grant of
      remission was illegal. The High Court accepted the contention and
      allowed the writ petition. It is against the said order that State has come
H     up with the above appeal.
         THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR v.                               487
           VIJAYANAGARAM CHINNA REDDAPPA

      What is in question in this appeal is an interplay between Sections   A
426 and 427 Cr.P.C. These sections read as follows:
      “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         B
      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       C
      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                  D
      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.                                      E

      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
                                                                            F
      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
                                                                            G
      imprison- ment 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.
                                                                            H
488             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A           (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.”
B            At the outset, we must remember that we are dealing with the
      case of an escaped convict. Therefore, the case of the detenu would
      obviously be covered by Section 426(2)(b), which deals with case of an
      escaped convict, already serving a sentence severer in kind, but imposed
      with a less severe sentence in respect of a subsequent conviction. Section
      426(2)(b) Cr.P.C. states that insofar as an escaped convict is concerned,
C
      the sentence imposed in the second or subsequent conviction shall take
      effect only after the escaped convict has suffered imprisonment for a
      further period equal to that which at the time of escape remained
      unexpired of his former sentence.
              But insofar as a life convict is concerned, in law, no part of the
D
      sentence remains unexpired. 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. A life sentence is a sentence for life. What remains
      unexpired of such a sentence is known only to God (if you believe) and
E     to the Government, if there is a policy of remission. Therefore, Section
      426(2)(b) cannot be taken to have included within its fold, the case of a
      life convict, since in the case of life convict no portion of the sentence
      remains unexpired, in the technical sense.
             If Section 426(2)(b) Cr.P.C. is out of the picture, then what remains
F     is Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. Under Section 427(2) Cr.P.C., the subsequent
      sentence should run concurrently along with a previous sentence, if 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.
G           Therefore, while Section 426 covers the case of an escaped
      convict, clause (b) of sub-section (2) thereof creates a conundrum in
      respect of life convicts. But Section 427, though does not deal with the
      case of an escaped convict, provides enough room for finding out how a
      sentence imposed on a subsequent conviction, in respect of a life convict,
      should be handled.
H
           THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR v.                                 489
             VIJAYANAGARAM CHINNA REDDAPPA

       Therefore, the application of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. by the High         A
Court to the case on hand, is perfectly in order and the appeal deserves
to be dismissed.
       Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The detenu shall be set at
liberty forthwith.
                                                                                B
       Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


Divya Pandey                                                Appeal dismissed.
(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)

                                                                                C




                                                                                D




                                                                                E




                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H