Sawal Das v. the State of Bihar

''608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19~] 1 S.C.R. BEG J.-This is an application for review of an order pa>sed by us -011 19-1-1974 on a Criminal Appeal by special leave. The applicant had been tried, together with his father Jamuna .Prasad and step-mother Kalawati Devi, and convicted for the murder of his wife Chanda Devi, who, it was alleged, had frequent quarrels with Kalawati. The applicant and his father and certain other per­ sons were also charged under Section 201 Indian Penal C~de for -disposing of the body of Chanda Devi after the murder knowing that ·she bad been murdered. The Trial Court convicted the applicaut Sawal Das, his father .Jamuna Prasad, and his step-mother Kalawati fer the cffence of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for life. The applicant and his father were also convicted under Section 201 I. P. C. but no separate sen­ tences were inposed upon them for this offence "In view of the fact that they had been sentenced under Sections 304/34 I. P. C." The High Court, on an appeal by convicted persons, set aside the ·convictions of Kalawati for both offences and ordered her to be set at liberty. It also allowed the appeal of Jamuna Prarnd the father of the applicant to the extent that it set aside his conviction under Sections 302/34 I. P. C., but it maintained his cc·nviction under Section 201 I. P. C. and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprirnnment. It converted the conviction of the applicant under Section 302/34 I. P. C. to a conviction under Section 302 I. P. C. simpliciter and .maintained the sentence of life imprisonment in the following terms: "The appeal of appellant Sawal Das is dismimd maintain­ ing his conviction and sentence under Section 201, Indian Penal Code and also maintaining the sen.tence upon him for th_e offence of murder but altering the conviction from Section 302/ 34, to 302, Indian Penal Code simpliciter. The sentences will run concurrently as already decided by the Court below". Apparantly, the High Court was under the erroneous impression that the applicant Sawal Das had been not only convicted but also se­ ntenced by the Trial Court under Section 302 I. P. C. as well as under ·section 201.I. P. C. The Trial Court, as already observed, ha.d neither passed a separate sentence under Section 201 I. P. C. upon the apph­ cant nor indicated what it could be. It overloc ked that, according to ·Jaw, a separate sentence ought to be passed for each offence even if sentences are made concurrent because a Court may, as it has in this case, set aside a conviction so that the need for a eeparate sentence must necessarily arise in such an event. This Court dismissed the application of applicant's father Jamuna Prasad for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 201 I. P. C. It also refused leave to the applicant to contest any point beyond the correctness of his conviction and sentence under Section 302 I. P. C. This Court, after having considered the uncertam­ iies, arising from the facts found, as to whether all the three perrnns .accused of murder or only one of them, and, if so, which of ' ' SAWAL DAS v. BIHAR (Beg, J.) 609' them, committed acts which could fasten the liablility for murder upon him or her singly, came to the conclusion that the­ applicant must get the benefit of that uncertainty as the charge under Section 34 I. P. C. had failed. It could not be definitely rnid whether the applicant had actually taken part, and, if so, what that was, in murdering his wife Chanda Devi. Nevertheless, this Court was con­ vinced that a murder of Chanda Devi had been committed after the applicant, his father, and his step-mother were seen following her into a room in their house. No one had said what actually took place inside it. As a necessary consequence of setting aside the convicticn cf the applicant under Section 302 I.P.C. while affirming this conviction C under Section 201 J.P.C., as no special leave to 8ppeal was granted against this conviction, this Court had to di,pcoe oftbe ca" by pafsing some order on the sentence under Section 201 J.P.C. Indeed, there was some argument in the course of hearing of the appeal as to what would be the appropriate sentence in this state of affairs. The applicant has now come. up on a technical point. It is that, as no appeal was filed at all by the State against the failure of the Trial Court to pass a separate sentence under Secticn 201 J.P.C., or against tne failure of the High Court to specify fr.e sentence on the erroneous assumption that scme sentence had actually b<en passed for an offence under Sectic n 201 J.P. C. upcn the applicant, this Court could not pass any sentence at all now upon the applicant under Section 201 I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the applicant brought to our notice Jayaram Vithoba & Anr. v. The State of Bambay(I) which was a case under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. This Court had laid down there (at p. !054-55): "When a person is tried for an offence and convicted it is the duty of the Court to impose on him such srntence, as i; pre' scribed therefor. The law does not envisage a person being con-­ victed for an offence without a sentence being imposed therefor. When the Trial Magistrate convicted the first appellant und<r Section 5, it was plainly his duty to have imposed a sentence. Having imposed a sentence under section 4 (a) he obviously considered that there was no need to impose a like sentence under section, 5 and to direct that both the sentences should run concurrently. But, in strictness, such an order was the proper one to be passed. The appellants then took the matter in revision to the High Court,and contended that their conviction under section 5 was bad. The High Court went into the question on the merits, and found them guilty under that section. It was the duty of the High Court, to impose a sentence under section 5, and that is precisely what it has done. The power to pass a sentence under those circumstances is derived frcm the law which enacts that on conviction a sentence shall be imposed (I) [1955] 2 SCR. 1049 @ 1054-55. ., 10 SUPREME COURT REPORl:S [1975] 1 S.C.R. <0n the accused, and that is a power which can and ought to be exercised by all the Courts which, having jurisdiction to decide whether the accused is guilty or not find that he is. We are of .opinion th.at this power is preserved to the appellate court ,expressly by section 423 (1) (d) which enacts that it can 'make any ·am!ndment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper'. When a conviction is affirmed in appeal but no sentence had been awarded by the trial Magistrate, the award of a sentence is consequential on and incidental to the affirm1nce of the conviction, and it is a just and proper order to be passed under the law. We are unable to agree with the view expressed in Ibrahim v. Emperor (AIR 1940 Born. 129) that such an order would be an enhancement of the sentence". We think that what was held in the caoe cited above applies to the case before us also. It shows that a consequential order, in the drcum 1tan~!s set out abJve, impJsing a sentence which, by an inadvertence, was not passed by the High Court, could be passed by this Court. The contention of the applicant that, as no particular sentence was imposed by the High Court or the Trial Court, the app­ iicant m'.lst be deem!d not to have been sentenced at all is also incor­ rect. The orders passed show that the applicant was not only convicted under Section 201 I.P.C. but his sentence for the offence was ordered to run concurrently with the life sentence. Only the period of the sentence was not fixed. This was plainly erroneous. ·The sentence could not be concurrent for the whole period of the sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. Therefore, when that sentence was set aside, the period of the sentence under Section 201 LP.C. had to be fixed as a necessary consequence. It was also urged before us that we had not heard the applicant . on the question of sentence to be imposed under Section 201 I.P.C. We fin1, from our judgmmt, that this was done. However, we have heard the applicant again on this review application after issuing notice to the State. We do not find sufficient grounds for revising 1he senten:e of7 y'ars rigorous impri?on~entand a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, ,and, in d!fau\t of paymmt of fine, 1mpnsonm,nt for a further term . .of six ffi)nths. This P'tition is hereby dismissed. Revie.iv Petition dis111issed . . P. B. R. t