JITENDRA @ KALLA v. STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

3.1 In the first charge sheet in respect of 1st offence the trial court, while imposing sentence of life imprisonment, put a cap of 30 years thereby clearly stating that no remission would be permissible before that. Again, while inflicting life imprisonment in the second case, it stated that the sentence would be for whole life and would start only after completion of the sentence in the first offence. Thus the trial court awarded consecutive sentences. Both the cases were tried together. Conviction was recorded by one common judgment. Likewise sentences were also recorded by one common order. In this backdrop, the High Court has correctly come to conclusion that there was no question of giving consecutive sentences and sentences had to be concurrent. The High Court also specifically JITENDRA @ KALLA v. STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 625 referred to Section 427 of CrPC., whereby “ When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.” [Paras 28-29] [639- C-E, F-G]

3.2 Remissions are of two types. One type of remission is what is earned by a prisoner under the Prison Rules or other relevant rules. The other remission is by the appropriate Government in exercise of its power under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, when a remission of the substantive sentence is granted under Section 432, then and then only giving credit to the earned remission can take place and not otherwise. Similarly, in the case of a life imprisonment, meaning thereby the entirety of one’s life, unless there is a commutation of such sentence for any specific period, there would be no scope to count the earned remission. The special category of sentence, to be considered in substitute of death penalty by imposing a life sentence i.e. the entirety of the life or a term of imprisonment which can be less than full life term but more than 14 years is beyond application of remission. Section 31 of Cr.P.C. be so interpreted as to prevent any anomaly or irrationality. So interpreted Section 31(1) CrPC must mean that sentences awarded by the court for several offences committed by the prisoner shall run consecutively (unless the court directs otherwise) except where such sentences include imprisonment for life which can and must run concurrently. If more than one life sentences are awarded to the prisoner, the same would get superimposed over each other. This will imply that in case the prisoner is granted the benefit of any remission or commutation qua one such sentence, the benefit of such remission would not ipso facto extend to the other.” Thus, the order of the High Court removing the cap of 30 years is not correct and that portion has to be set aside. [Paras 30 and 31] [639-H; 640-A-D; 641-A-B]