Karan Singh vs The State Of Haryana

2025 INSC 475 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12497 of 2024)

KARAN SINGH …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has approached this Court by way of

present appeal challenging the order dated 9th May 2024

passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No. 944 of 2023

(O&M), thereby dismissing the revision petition filed by the

present appellant.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are Signature Not Verified

as under:

Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.04.09 17:13:52 IST Reason:

3.1 In an FIR being No.2 of 2005 dated 7th January 2005

1 registered at Police Station Sadar, Dadri, the appellant was

implicated for an offence punishable under Section 302 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

“IPC”).

3.2 Upon appreciation of the evidence at the conclusion of

the trial, the appellant came to be convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC vide judgment and order

dated 8th February 2007 in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2005.

3.3 The said conviction and sentence was affirmed by the

High Court vide its judgment and order dated 6th February

2009.

3.4 While the appellant was undergoing the sentence of life

imprisonment, he was released on parole vide order dated

21st April 2010 for a period of six weeks. However, since the

appellant did not surrender within the specified period, he

came to be arrested on 30th June 2010.

3.5 Since the appellant had not surrendered within the

prescribed period, an FIR being No.224 dated 17th June 2010

came to be registered against the appellant for the offences

punishable under Section 8/9 of the Haryana Good Conduct

Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred

2 to as “Prisoners Act, 1988”).

3.6 The appellant came to be convicted for the said offence

vide judgment and order dated 11/13th November 2010 and

was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.

3.7 The appeal challenging the same came to be dismissed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide

order dated 25th November 2013.

3.8 Being aggrieved thereby, the Revision Petition was

preferred by the appellant before the High Court.

3.9 By the impugned judgment and order, the Revision

Petition has also been dismissed.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

both the parties.

5. Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of the appellant submits that insofar as the main

offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the appellant

has already been granted remission vide order dated 26th

September 2024, however, the appellant could not avail the

benefit of the same on account of the sentence awarded to

him under the Prisoners Act, 1988. He submits that the

sentence awarded under the Prisoners Act, 1988 was to run

3 consequently and would commence after he had served out

his sentence in the main offence. He submits that when an

accused is sentenced to life imprisonment, all other

sentences are required to be run concurrently and it cannot

be in addition to the life sentence.

6. We do not propose to go into the wider issue raised by

Shri Malhotra, inasmuch as we find that the appeal deserves

to be allowed on other grounds.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State

vehemently opposes the appeal. She submits that now the

Prisoners Act, 1988 has been amended with effect from 1 st

October 2012, and it prescribes for a minimum sentence of

two years, as such the appeal is without merits.

8. Section 9 of the Prisoners Act, 1988, reads as follows:

“9. (1) Any prisoner who is liable to be arrested under sub-section(2) of section 8, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to three years with fine. (2) An offence punishable under sub-section(1) shall be deemed to be cognizable and non-bailable.

Explanation:- The punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment awarded to the prisoner for the offence for which he was convicted”

9. Section 6 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners

(Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2012 reads thus:

4

“6. In sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Principal Act, for the words “three years and with fine”, the words “three years but shall not be less than two years” shall be substituted.”

10. It could thus be seen that while Section 9 of the

Prisoners Act, 1988 provides for a maximum sentence of

three years, it does not prescribe a minimum sentence for the

offence punishable under it.

11. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the

State with regard to the amendment to Section 9 of the

Prisoners Act, 1988 is concerned, it is pertinent to note that

the amendment came into effect on 1st October 2012,

whereas the offence was committed on 17th June 2010 and

the order of sentence was issued on 11/13th November 2010.

As such, the said amendment would not be applicable in the

facts of the present case.

12. In the present case, it can be seen that it is not the case

of the respondent-State that the appellant was habitually not

reporting to prison within the prescribed time. It appears

that the offence for which the appellant was convicted under

the Prisoners Act, 1988 was the first such instance.

13. The appellant has already been granted remission for

the main offence under Section 302 IPC. However, following 5 the date of remission, the appellant has undergone an

additional incarceration of approximately 10 months.

14. In the facts of the case, we therefore find that the

sentence already undergone would subserve the ends of

justice for the offence punishable under the Prisoners Act,

1988.

15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgment and order dated 9th May 2024 passed by the

learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No. 944 of 2023 is quashed

and set aside.

16. Since the appellant has already been granted remission

for the main offence under Section 302 IPC, he is directed to

be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

17. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

.............................................J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) NEW DELHI;

APRIL 08, 2025.

6