CRL.R.C No. 634 of 2012 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

2009 confirming the conviction in C.C.No. 317 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari. The revision petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 224 IPC. According to the case of the prosecution, the revision petitioner was convicted in S.C.No. 251 of 1995 and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and while undergoing the sentence, the revision petitioner is said to have escaped from the custody on 31.12.2005 and thereafter he was apprehended on 14.10.2008. Meanwhile, a complaint was lodged with the police regarding escaping jail while undergoing imprisonment. He was charged for the offence under Section 224 IPC and when he pleaded guilty, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two years by the court below and the conviction and sentence was confirmed in the 1st Appellate Court. The present revision is filed questioning the confirmation of conviction and sentence.

There cannot be any dispute about the fact that when the sentence has been imposed on a plea of guilt, the court cannot go into the merits of the case unless there is material to show that the plea was vitiated by inducement or otherwise. The 1st Appellate Court has considered the above fact and concluded that there was no inducement in view of the fact that he was in central prison at the time of confession. In view of the above circumstances, the conviction under Section 224 IPC cannot be said to be bad. But however, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the accused has been in jail from the date of Judgement i.e. 31.12.2005 and thereafter from 14.10.2008 till this day. It was also further pleaded that the sentence of imprisonment which was imposed in the sessions case has already suffered by the revision petitioner. Taking into consideration the fact that the accused being in custody in this case also from 14.11.2008, though the lower court has not ordered the sentence in this case to run concurrently with the sentence in the sessions case, the sentence which the revision petitioner had already undergone shall be treated as the sentence and the revision petitioner shall be released so far as this case is concerned.

If the accused has to suffer any further sentence in S.C.No. 251 of 1995, the order in this revision will not enure to his benefit. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of. ____________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 18.04.2012. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.No. 634 of 2012 JUDGEMENT:

18.04.2012.