- The Supreme Court, in a recent order, directed the government of Chhattisgarh to recompense Rs 7.5 lakh to a man who was convicted of rape and endured imprisonment in excess of the period he was sentenced to serve.
- A special leave petition was heard by a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar observed that detaining a convict beyond their release date – and thus, without the authorization of the law – is an infringement of the Articles 19(d) and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
- Bhola Kumar was found guilty of rape and condemned by a trial court to serve 12 years in imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 10,000.
- The Chhattisgarh high court while hearing his appeal on July 19, 2018, maintained his conviction, but diminished his detainment period to seven years as well as directed him to pay Rs 15,000 compensation to the victim.
- Kumar had been sentenced to seven years in prison but had been confined for ten years and three months, according to his custody certificate.
- While hearing Kumar’s SLP, the Supreme Court noticed his detainment beyond the sentence period and directed the superintendent of the Central Jail, Ambikapur to file an affidavit in the case.
- The superintendent submitted that Kumar had been confined for a total of eight years and two months, barring the ‘remission period’ and that he had to undergo this one additional year of imprisonment for neglecting to pay the Rs 15,000 compensation to the victim.
- Additionally, the affidavit stated that the 2018 high court order reducing Kumar’s sentence had not been communicated to prison authorities and, after learning the Supreme Court’s order in May this year, immediate action was taken.
- The Supreme Court scrutinized this fact and questioned how the respondent could feign ignorance about the judgment of the High Court dated 19.7.2018 which reduced the sentence imposed on the appellant.
- While the Supreme Court emphasized that it was aware of the gravity of the offense committed by Kumar, the apex court stressed that a convict must only be held for the period that they have been sentenced to serve. It would be imprisonment without legal authorization and would thus, violate not only Article 19(d) but also Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- While deciding to grant compensation to the appellant, the court highlighted the fact that he is a youth and that “the long and illegal deprivation of the right to move freely” would cause mental misery and torment to Kumar.
- According to the bench, it is only just and proper to pass an order granting compensation to the tune of Rs 7.5 lakh to be paid by the State holding that it is vicariously liable for the act or omission committed by its officers in the course of their employment. They also make it clear that while holding the State vicariously liable as above the State must have recourse against the erred officer(s).
"Loved reading this piece by Mahi Manchanda ?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
