But advocate Qayoom was not satisfied at all. He has decided to challenge the decision in the double bench and is preparing to take up ‘the issues which have not been dealt with in the decision’.
“I am not satisfied with the decision because the arguments which I had raised have not been dealt with. Therefore we are going to challenge it,” Qayoom told Kashmir Life. In support of his point, the court cites an example from a Supreme Court judgment in a case titled Swamy Shradanand v/s State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 3040, 54, 55, 56 and 58.
- Advocate Qayoom had argued that the provisions contained in the Jail Manual, Prisons Act and Prisoners Act mandate that imprisonment for life means 20 years. While answering the argument of Qayoom, the verdict says, “This argument has no force for the simple reason that the provisions contained in the Jail Manual, Prisons Act and Prisoners Act only lay down the provisions as to how to regulate and manage the prisoners in the prison and irrespective of the remissions granted to a life convict, he shall be replaced only after the state government has issued specific orders about his release.”
Qayoom had further argued that Faktoo had earned remission for his good behavior in the jail and his cumulative period of detention came out to be 20 years which amounted to life imprisonment. “The grounds argued in the petition that after completion of 20 years of life imprisonment the convict is automatically entitled to be released, is not tenable for the reason that if the jail authorities take into consideration the conduct of convict and make a recommendation for remission or release of convict after 20 or 14 years, the sanction of the government is pre-requisite. It is the domain of the government to consider the case along with the recommendation made and pass an order in the facts and circumstances of each case. Writ of mandamus can’t lie to command the government for passing such order or to release the convict after expiry of 14 or 20 years without any specific order,” the High Court observed.
Referring to a latest decision of the Apex Court, the verdict says that in a case titled State of UP vs Sanjay Kumar,(2012) 5 SCC 766, the apex court has held that life imprisonment can’t be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 or 20 years, rather it means the whole natural life.
The High Court in its judgment has tried to find answers to as many as three questions and the court refers to the Sections of RPC, Cr.P.C, Prison Act, Prisoners Act and Jail Manual for this purpose.
1. Whether life imprisonment means entire natural life or undergoing 20 years of sentence?
2. Whether a life convict can be released automatically after completion of 20 years without any orders from the state, including the jail authorities?
3. Whether the provisions contained in the Jail Manual, Prisons Act and Prisoners Act have overriding effect over the provisions of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)?
- Referring to Section 45 of the RPC, the High Court observed that the word ‘life’ denotes the life of a human being, unless the contrary appears from the context.
While referring to Section 55 of the RPC, the judgment reads, “In every case in which sentence of imprisonment shall have been passed (the government) may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years”.
Referring to Section 57 of RPC, the judgment says, “In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment of twenty years” but the judgment added, “The object of said section relates as to how to calculate the fractions of terms of punishment and provides that imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years, when punishment is to be awarded to a co-accused, who is also involved in the same offence either by abetment, conspiracy or attempt, in which the main accused is awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life”.
In the light of Section 35 (2), 40 (1), and 402 Cr.P.C, the High Court held that in the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the court, by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on trial before a higher court. —
