Skip to content


Karansingh Vs. State of M.P. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1982CriLJ2133
AppellantKaransingh
RespondentState of M.P.
Cases ReferredMaru Ram v. Union of India
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him.....p.c. 1973.are not applicable to the present case.4. now, it is not disputed by shri surjitsingh that the sentence for life imprisonment was made for 14 years prior to the insertion of the aforesaid provision. since the petitioner has by now undergone more than 14 years sentence, he is entitled to be set at liberty forthwith.5. accordingly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. the petitioner karansingh is directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other offence.
Judgment:

H.G. Mishra, J.

1. This is a petition whereby the petitioner Karansingh claims to be set at liberty forthwith on the ground that before submission of his application to this court he has already undergone 14 years of rigorous imprisonment, including the period of special remissions and remissions,

2. The petitioner Karansingh was sentenced to imprisonment for life by judgment dated 7-4-1971. Including the period of remissions and special remissions on 26-1-1978 the period of undergone sentence comes to 13 years, 7 months and 26 days. There is no dispute between the parties on these facts.

3. Now, the two questions are for consideration (i) whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on the basis of the ratio of Mohansingh v. State of M.P. 1980 MPLJ 665 : 1981 Cri LJ 147 and (ii) whether the petitioner is entitled to the ratio of Maru Ram v. Union of India : 1980CriLJ1440 . So far as the ratio of Mohansingh's case (supra) is concerned, it appears to have a different field to operate. Its applicability is confined to those cases where after giving margin to remissions and special remissions the sentence comes to 14 years as on 26-1-1978. In this case the period so calculated comes below 14 years on the Aforesaid date. Accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the ratio of Mohansingh's case (supra). So far as the ratio of Maru Ram's case (supra) it concerned, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that insertion of Section 433A in the Criminal P.C. 1973, is prospective in its operation and its applicability is confined to only those cases where a person has been convicted by the sentence of court after 18-12-1978 when the aforesaid section was inserted and brought into force by the amendment Act No. 45 of 1978. Accordingly, the provisions placed in Section 433A of the Criminal P.C. 1973.are not applicable to the present case.

4. Now, it is not disputed by Shri Surjitsingh that the sentence for life imprisonment was made for 14 years prior to the insertion of the aforesaid provision. Since the petitioner has by now undergone more than 14 years sentence, he is entitled to be set at liberty forthwith.

5. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The petitioner Karansingh is directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other offence.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //