Case: Jayawant Dattatray Suryarao Vs. State Of Maharashtra


Decision:
0[ds]It is true that if the confessional statements are taken as they are, accused can be convicted for the offences for which they are charged as the said statements are admissible in evidence and are substantive piece of evidence. However, considering the facts of the case, particularly that the confessional statements were recorded by the police officer during investigation; said statements were not sent to the Judicial Magistrate forthwith; and that after recording the statements, accused were not sent to judicial custody, in our opinion, unless there is sufficient corroboration to the said statements, it is not safe to convict the accused solely on the basis of the confessions. Therefore, we have considered confessional statements with the other evidence connecting the accused with the crime. Learned senior counsel Mr. Sushil Kumar submitted that if we remove the evidence of PW 26 from the scene then it is difficult to maintain the conviction of A-7. It is his contention that A-2 and A-6 were knowing each other as per their admission in confessional statements. He emphasized minor contradictions and submitted that evidence against A-7 is not sufficient to connect him with the crime. In our view other evidence as stated above fully corroborates the confessional statements and there is no reason to discard the evidence of PWSubhash Chander v. Krishan Lal and others 2001 SC 20876) the Court referred to the decision in State of M.P. v. Ratan Singh 1976 SC 590 and held that a sentence of imprisonment for life does not automatically expire at the end of 20 years, including the remissions. The Court in Ratan Singhs case has observed thatAs regards the first point, namely, that the prisoner could be released automatically on the expiry of 20 years under the Punjab Jail Manual or the Rules framed under the Prisons Act, the matter is no longer res integra and stands concluded by a decision of this Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra 1961 SC 227 where the Court, following a decision of the Privy Council in Pandit Kishori Lal v. King Emperor [LR 72 IA 1 : 1945 AIR(PC) 64 : 1945 (46) CrLJ 626)] observed as follows :" *Under that section, a person transported for life or any other term before the enactment of the said section would be treated as a person sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life or for the said term.If so, the next question is whether there is any provision of law whereunder a sentence for life imprisonment, without any formal remission by appropriate Government can be automatically treated as one for a definite period. No such provision is found in the Indian Penal Code,Code of Criminal Procedure or the Prisons Act.A sentence of transportation for life or imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as transportation or imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted persons natural life. The Court further observed thus :-But the Prisons Act does not confer on any authority a power to commute or remit sentences, it provides only for the regulation of prisons and for the treatment of prisoners confined therein. Section 59 of the Prisons Act confers a power on the State Government to make rules, inter alia, for rewards for good conduct. Therefore, the rules made under the Act should be construed within the scope or the ambit of the Act ....... Under the said rules the orders of an appropriate Government under Section 401, Criminal Procedure Code, are a prerequisite for a release. No other rule has been brought to our notice which confers an indefeasible right on a prisoner sentenced to transportation for life to an unconditional release on the expiry of a particular term including remissions. The rules under the Prisons Act do not substitute a lesser sentence for a sentence of transportation for life.