If a person is convicted for life, unless he has actually served 14 years’ sentence, he will not be entitled to be considered for release by giving him benefit of remissions earned by him

Lisa Coutinho | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 19th March 2020

Ex-Gunner Virender Prasad v. Union of India & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 2035 of 2012

Facts of the case:

The appellant and the deceased were deployed at the same unit i.e 20 Surveillance and target acquisition regiment, and both were in good terms with each other. The appellant contended that he shot the deceased in a delusion of a militant attack, wherein he was firing in retaliation. Thereafter, he came out of his tent and surrendered himself to his Senior Authorities and confessed his guilt. Investigation was then carried out and police registered the case and submitted a challan before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The appellant was charged under section 69 of the Army Act for committing a civil offense of murder, contrary to section 302 of Ranbir Penal Code. He was found guilty of murder by the Court Martial, and was sentenced to life imprisonment and was dismissed from service. Thereafter, the appellant challenged the order of Court Martial before the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of Army Staff by filing petitions under Sections 164(2) and 165 of Army Act, but the petitions were dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which was subsequently transferred to Armed Forces Tribunal. The AFT also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court held that they find no reason to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the Court Martial which was confirmed by the AFT, thereby holding that the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 69 of the Army Act. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, the Court, after viewing previous case laws held that if a person is convicted for life, unless he has actually served 14 years’ sentence, he will not be entitled to be considered for release by giving him benefit of remissions earned by him.

The Supreme Court has observed the conduct and behaviour of the appellant in jail, which has been excellent. The appellant has served 16 years 6 months in jail i.e. a period more than 14 years. As such a bar of Section 433A od CrPC would not be applicable.

Thus, the Apex Court is of the view that the sentence already served by the appellant is much more than proportionate to the offence proved against him. Thus while dismissing the appeal, the Honourable Supreme Court directed the appellant to be forthwith released from custody.