At the outset, we must remember that we are dealing with the case of an escaped convict. Therefore, the case of the detenu would obviously be covered by Section 426(2)(b), which deals with case of an escaped convict, already serving a sentence severer in kind, but imposed with a less severe sentence in respect of a subsequent conviction. Section 426(2)(b) Cr.P.C. states that insofar as an escaped convict is concerned, the sentence imposed in the second or subsequent conviction shall take effect only after the escaped convict has suffered imprisonment for a further period equal to that which at the time of escape remained unexpired of his former sentence.
But insofar as a life convict is concerned, in law, no part of the sentence remains unexpired. The remission granted by the Government to a life convict, cannot be taken to mean that there is some portion of the life sentence that remains unexpired in the same sense as in the case of other convicts. A life sentence is a sentence for life. What remains unexpired of such a sentence is known only to God (if you believe) and to the Government, if there is a policy of remission. Therefore, Section 426(2)(b) cannot be taken to have included within its fold, the case of a life convict, since in the case of life convict no portion of the sentence remains unexpired, in the technical sense.
If Section 426(2)(b) Cr.P.C. is out of the picture, then what remains is Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. Under Section 427(2) Cr.P.C., the subsequent sentence should run concurrently along with a previous sentence, if 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.
Therefore, while Section 426 covers the case of an escaped convict, clause (b) of sub-section (2) thereof creates a conundrum in respect of life convicts. But Section 427, though does not deal with the case of an escaped convict, provides enough room for finding out how a sentence imposed on a subsequent conviction, in respect of a life convict, should be handled.
Therefore, the application of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. by the High Court to the case on hand, is perfectly in order and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
PARTY: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR vs. VIJAYANAGARAM CHINNA REDDAPPA – Crl.Apl No: 1313 of 2023 – APRIL 28, 2023.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/5716/5716_2023_15_43_44041_Order_28-Apr-2023.pdf
