Supreme Court orders Chhattisgarh State to grant ₹7.5 lakh compensation to rape convict detained in prison beyond his sentence period

The Supreme Court recently ordered State of Chhattisgarh to pay ₹7.5 lakhs as compensation to a rape convict who was kept in prison beyond the period of sentence awarded to him [Bhola v. State of Chattishgarh]..A division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar was hearing a case where the appellant was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. However, he was made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years 3 months and 16 days, including remission."When such a convict is detained beyond the actual release date it would be imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law and would thus, violate not only Article 19(d)but also Article 21 of the Constitution of India", the top Court held..In a nutshell- The appellant was challenging an order confirming his conviction for the offence of rape but reducing the sentence from 12 years to 7 years imprisonment;- While examining the case, the apex court found that the appellant was kept in incarceration beyond the period of sentence of imprisonment;- He suffered imprisonment for a total of 10 years 3 months and 16 days;- The top court found this to be a violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 19(d) and 21;- Therefore, compensation was granted while holding that the State was vicariously liable for the acts and omissions committed by its officers..The question before the bench was whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for being kept in prison beyond the period of sentence, as a result of which he sustained deprival of personal liberty..At the very outset, the court noted that the case revealed a continuance of contumacious act on the part of a State government officials in keeping the appellant in incarceration beyond the period of sentence of imprisonment, unmindful of the Court's final verdict."This kind of levity cannot be viewed with laxity and it is time to consider it on the legit," said the apex court. .It was underscored that freedom of movement could not be curtailed or taken away by imprisonment or detention ordained after due process of law, and imprisonment sans sanction of law would violate Article 19(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution..The appellant was found guilty by a trial court for the offence of rape. Consequently, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 12 years and pay a fine of ₹10,000. When the conviction was appealed before the Chhattisgarh High Court, the same was confirmed but the sentence was reduced to 7 years imprisonment and the fine ordered remained as it is. Additionally, he was asked to compensate the victim by paying ₹15,000..In the plea before the Supreme Court, the appellant highlighted that despite suffering the full sentence, he was not released. To ascertain the facts, the Court sought an affidavit from the State. .An affidavit was filed by the Superintendent of Central Jail which stated that the total sentence undergone by the appellant, excluding remission, was only 8 years 1 month and 29 days. It was submitted that since he failed to pay the compensation ordered, he was to undergo one more year of imprisonment.Examine this, the court found it "disturbing" that a purposeful omission was made to make any mention about the period of remission to which the appellant was entitled. Further, it was found that even going by the affidavit, imprisonment was in excess of what was he was to suffer legally."We find no reason to accept so-called justification and we will explain the raison d’etre for our disinclination and also for our inclination to grant compensation," the Court said.Another aspect the Court considered serious was that the the respondent was feigning ignorance about the High Court's judgment..It was clarified that the Court was not oblivious to the grave offence committed by the appellant, but when a convict was detained beyond the actual release date it would violate both Article 19(d) and Article 21.Therefore, considering the convict's age, the long and illegal imprisonment, deprivation of his right to move freely and mental agony, the top court was of the view that he has to be compensated."In this case, we found that the appellant was kept illegally in prison far in excess of the legally permissible period of incarceration despite coming to know about the appellate judgment of the High Court," the bench recorded. .Therefore, the Court held that the State was vicariously liable for the acts and omissions committed by its officers in the course of employment and was directed to pay the appellant compensation to the tune of ₹7.5 lakh. .[Read Judgment]