This Court in Naib Singh’s case held that the sentence of imprisonment for life has to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life. The law laid down by this Court in Naib Singh’s was followed by this Court in three judgments Dilpesh Balchandra Panchal v. State of Gujarat, Sat Pal alias Sadhu v. State of Haryana5 and Mohd. Munna v. Union of India6.
9. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court on
the issues that arise for consideration in these SLPs, there is no
need to re-examine the limited point for which notice was issued.
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6220 of 2018
MD. ALFAZ ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM
Dated: September 14, 2021.
1. On 31.10.2006, a complaint was filed by Md. Abdul Jalil son
of Kalu Khan, resident of village Kareyia Pahar to Officer-in-
Charge of Police Station Jogighopa, District Bongaigaon alleging
that his daughter Marzina Begum was killed by the Petitioner,
who is her husband. The Petitioner was convicted under Section
302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life. The appeal filed by the Petitioner challenging the conviction
and sentence was dismissed by the High Court by a judgment
dated 15.07.2016, aggrieved by which this Special Leave Petition
is filed.
2. Notice was issued on 27.07.2018, restricted to the question
of propriety of specifying rigorous imprisonment while imposing
life sentence.
3. We are informed by the learned Counsel for the State that
the Petitioner was released on annual leave of 30 days on
17.02.2020 but he did not surrender after expiry of leave on
18.03.2020. An FIR was lodged on 19.03.2020 at Jogighopa
Police Station under Section 224 IPC. The Petitioner surrendered
on 28.05.2020 and he has undergone sentence of about nine
years till date.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7110 of 2018)
4. The Petitioner has filed the above SLP assailing the
judgment of the High Court by which his conviction and sentence
under Section 302 IPC was upheld.
5. According to the prosecution, the Petitioner killed his wife on
the suspicion of her infidelity. On 24.08.2018, notice was issued
by this Court on the question of propriety of specifying rigorous
imprisonment while imposing life sentence.
6. As limited notice was issued in both the SLPs, we heard
arguments on the point of rigorous imprisonment while convicting
a person under Section 302 IPC. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in SLP (Crl.) No.6220
of 2018, submitted that the issue is no more res integra as it is
covered by a judgment of this Court in Naib Singh v. State of
Punjab & Ors.1
7. Mr. Ajay Marwah, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner in SLP Crl. No.7110 of 2018, made an attempt to
distinguish the judgment in Naib Singh (supra). Mr. Debojit
Borkakati, learned counsel appearing for the State of Assam,
relied upon the judgment of this Court in Dilpesh Balchandra
Panchal v. State of Gujarat2 to submit that the arguments that
are advanced in these cases have been considered by this Court
earlier and were rejected.
8. In Naib Singh (supra) the Petitioner was originally
sentenced to death for committing an offence of murder under
Section 302 IPC. Later, the death sentence was commuted to
imprisonment for life by the Government of Punjab. After having
undergone sentence of 22 years, Naib Singh filed a Writ Petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging his
continued detention. One of the points argued by the Petitioner
relates to sentence of imprisonment for life not to be equated to
rigorous imprisonment for life. By taking into account the earlier
judgments of this Court in Pandit Kishori Lal v. King Emperor3
1 (1983) 2 SCC 454
2 (1992) 4 SCC 172
3 AIR 1945 PC 64
and Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra4, this
Court in Naib Singh’s case held that the sentence of imprisonment
for life has to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life. The
law laid down by this Court in Naib Singh’s was followed by this
Court in three judgments Dilpesh Balchandra Panchal v. State
of Gujarat, Sat Pal alias Sadhu v. State of Haryana5 and
Mohd. Munna v. Union of India6.
9. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court on
the issues that arise for consideration in these SLPs, there is no
need to re-examine the limited point for which notice was issued.
10. Therefore, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
….............................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..……......................J.
[ B.R. GAVAI ]
New Delhi,
September 14, 2021.
4 1961 3 SCR 440
5 (1992) 4 SCC 172
6 (2005) 7 SCC 417
No comments:
Post a Comment