Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Rajasthan High Court: In a petition filed by a tribal woman, rectification of an anomaly arising from an appellate judgment was sought that was passed on the erroneous assumption that she had remained in continuous custody for several years, the Division Bench of Farjand Ali* and Anand Sharma, JJ., held that through the prism of equity and conscience, it does not even seem just or humane to send her back to prison for the unserved portion of the term.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition and stated that the petitioner should not be required to surrender before the authorities concerned.
Background
In 2004, the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine and the corresponding default clause. Aggrieved by the said judgment, she preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court.
The said appeal was partly allowed by the Division Bench as her conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was set aside, and she was instead convicted for the lesser offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. While adjudicating the appeal, the Division Bench proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner had remained continuously in judicial custody from July 2003 till July 2011.
Subsequently, the true and correct factual position emerged revealing that the aforesaid assumption was erroneous. Although the application for suspension of sentence was allowed by the Court in November 2004, the said order remained inoperative for a considerable period as the petitioner failed to furnish bail bonds. It later transpired that the petitioner eventually submitted the requisite bail bonds only in December 2005, pursuant to which she was released from Central Jail on the same date.
Thus, the petitioner had not remained in uninterrupted custody until the disposal of the appeal. In fact, her actual custodial detention, both police and judicial, extended only from July 2003 to December 2005.
The said discrepancy occurred due to a communication lapse between the Registry of the High Court, the Trial Court, the governmental authorities concerned, and the office of the Public Prosecutor. The correct and complete custody particulars of the petitioner were regrettably not placed before the Division Bench. The Public Prosecutor, who was duty-bound to apprise the Court of the accurate custody status, failed to inform the Court that the petitioner had been released on bail and was not in continuous incarceration thereafter.
Had this material and crucial fact been brought to the notice of the Division Bench at the relevant time, the operative portion of the judgment would likely have been framed differently. The present petition, therefore, arose to address and rectify the anomaly occasioned by the said inadvertent yet consequential lapse.
Analysis and Decision
The Court examined the record and observed that the discrepancy regarding the petitioner’s period of custody arose due to an inadvertent lapse on the part of the prosecuting agency and a communication failure between the Trial Court, the Registry, the Government authorities, and the office of the Public Prosecutor. The Court noted that the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the creation of this factual error, and therefore, the consequences of such institutional lapses could not be imposed upon her.
The Court considered that the incident dated back to 2003 and that both the petitioner and the deceased belonged to an indigent tribal family residing in a remote and hilly region with limited access to basic infrastructure. The petitioner, who was 32 years old at the time of the incident, was now approximately 55 years old and had remained at liberty for nearly two decades. The Court stated that the said circumstances were of critical relevance while determining whether any further custodial sentence would serve the ends of justice.
The Court further observed that although the earlier presumption that the petitioner had undergone eight years of incarceration was factually incorrect, the actual period of custody of approximately two years, when considered alongside the passage of twenty years, rendered it wholly unjust, impractical, and inhumane to direct her recommittal to prison at this stage. The Court took into account that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, and that no subsequent offence had been registered against her since her release.
The Court noted that the incident arose out of a domestic altercation between husband and wife which occurred within the privacy of the home, following a verbal quarrel that escalated into a physical scuffle. The Court emphasized that there was no evidence of premeditation, no repeated assault, and no other external injuries on the deceased. Further, the Court considered the scope of sentencing under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and stressed that the provision conferred wide discretion on the sentencing Court. Thus, the Court held that the domestic setting, spontaneous nature of the act, absence of premeditation, marginalized background of the petitioner, her gender and vulnerability, and her subsequent conduct clearly justified a lenient approach within the permissible statutory range.
The Court further observed that the Coordinate Bench, acting on incorrect custody information, had effectively calibrated the sentence to eight years, which it believed had already been undergone, and that this factual error warranted correction without disturbing the conviction. The Court clarified that the present exercise did not amount to a review of the earlier judgment, as criminal Courts do not possess review jurisdiction, rather, it was a necessary judicial correction occasioned by the emergence of a foundational fact that was not placed before the Court earlier due to inadvertence. The Court opined that allowing such a factual error to stand would undermine the credibility and fairness of the justice delivery system.
Considering that the petitioner had lost her husband of over fifteen years and that the emotional and personal consequences of the incident constituted a significant mitigating factor, the Court observed that directing her to undergo the remaining sentence after twenty years would be unduly harsh, inequitable, and contrary to the reformative philosophy of modern criminal jurisprudence.
The Court emphasized that contemporary penology prioritizes rehabilitation over retribution and held that sentencing should aim at reformation and reintegration rather than punitive severity, particularly where the offender has demonstrated law-abiding conduct for a prolonged period. The Court reiterated that a proper sentence should strike a balance between societal interest and individual justice, guided by proportionality and humane considerations. The Court further stated that through the prism of equity and conscience, it does not even seem just or humane to send her back to prison for the unserved portion of the term.
Therefore, the Court held that the sentence already undergone was sufficient to meet the ends of justice, thus no further custodial sentence was warranted. The Court disposed of the petition at hand and directed that the petitioner need not surrender, recalled any warrants or notices issued pursuant to the earlier orders, and clarified that the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC as recorded by the Coordinate Bench remained undisturbed.
[Kali v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 1396 of 2011, decided on 1-12-2025]
*Judgement authored by Justice Farjand Ali
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Shobha Prabhakar, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Rajesh Bhati, PP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
