Detention Beyond Release Date Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Rs 7.5 Lakh Compensation To Convict Kept In Prison In Excess Of Sentence Period
Case: Bhola Kumhar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar
Case No.: CrA 937 OF 2022
Court Observation: “When a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final, the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment.”
“We are not oblivious of the fact that the appellant herein was held guilty in a grave offence. But then, when a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final, the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment. When such a convict is detained beyond the actual release date it would be imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law and would thus, violate not only Article 19(d)but also Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This is what was suffered by the appellant for a very long period.”
“Considering the fact that the appellant is a youth, this long and illegal imprisonment beyond the period of sentence, taking into account the long and illegal deprivation of the right to move freely and thereby, the violation of right under Article 19 (d) of the Constitution of India, the violation of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the mental agony and pain caused due to such extra, illegal detention, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be compensated in terms of money”
“Without making any observation as to his civil remedy, we think it only just and proper to pass an order granting compensation to the tune of Rs.7.5 Lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) to be paid by the State holding that it is vicariously liable for the act/omission committed by its officers in the course of employment. We also make it clear that while holding the State vicariously liable as above the State must have recourse against the erred officer(s).”
Previous Posts
Accused Entitled To Bail If Arrest Was In Breach Of Sections 41, 41A CrPC: Supreme Court
Motor Accident Compensation – Self-Employed Deceased Aged Below 40 Years Entitled To 40% Addition As Future Prospects: Supreme Court Download Judgement
Keywords
Detention Beyond Release, Violates Article 21, Excess Of Sentence Period
