CHHOTIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three petitions under sec. 491 Cr. P. C. The facts of the cases of Chhotia and Sheo Bhagwan have been given in detail in our order of reference and we need not repeat them. After the cases of Chhotia and Sheo Bhagwan had been referred to Full Bench the petition of Ramdeo came up before this court and it was ordered that as his case was similar to that of Chhotia it be connected with these cases. The facts of Ramdeo's case are similar to those of the cases of Chhotia and Sheo Bhagwan. He was also sentenced to life imprisonment which was ordered to run for 25 years.

(2.) THE point which deserves consideration in these cases is whether the sentences passed in these three cases by the courts of the former Jaipur State before the formation of Rajasthan were legal. In all the three cases the sentences were awarded under sec. 290 of the Jaipur Penal Code which corresponds with sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Under sec. 290 J. P. C. the sentences provided are death or imprisonment for life and fine. THE sentence in Ramdeo's case was of life imprisonment to be computed equal to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment and under sec. 290 J. P. C. no such sentence could have been passed. THE sentence of 25 years' rigorous imprisonment is therefore not legal. Similarly in the case of Chhotia the sentence passed was of life imprisonment but it was added in the order that life imprisonment shall be deemed to be equivalent to 25 years. So far as the sentence that was awarded for the life imprisonmnent was concerned it was perfectly in accordance with the law. But the provision in the order regarding 25 years' rigorous imprisonment appears to be inconsistent with the provision of sec. 290 of the Jaipur Penal Code. THE case of Sheo Bhagwan is exactly at par with that of Chhotia. In his case also the sentence of life imprisonment was passed and it was provided that it would be deemed equivalent to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment. THE provision regarding deeming of life imprisonment to be equivalent to 52 years in these cases is not in accordance with the provision of sec. 290 of the Jaipur Penal Code.