remission in terms of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code = the appellant has so far undergone more than 14 years of jail sentence and he still remains in Jail undergoing his sentence. 4 9. In our opinion, if that were the case then the State can be directed to consider the appellant’s case for his remission in terms of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) read with Rules. In other words, the appellant is eligible for his release by the State in terms of the Rules in accordance with law depending upon a case made out by him. The State can always pass appropriate orders on appellant’s release provided a case to that effect as provided in the Rules is made out. 10. We, therefore, grant liberty to the appellant to apply to the State Government for consideration of his case for release as provided in Cr.P.C. read with the Rules provided the appellant is able to prove that he has completed the mandatory period of his sentence as prescribed in the Cr.P.C./Rules and 5 satisfy all necessary conditions to the satisfaction of the State. 11. The Jail Authorities would do the needful on behalf of the appellant and will accordingly forward his application along with necessary details to the Competent Authority of the State.

NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 863 OF 2012
RAJENDRA SINGH …..Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the accused against the
final judgment and order dated 3.11.2003 passed
by the High Court of Allahabad in Government
Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 1999 whereby the High
Court reversed the judgment of the Sessions Judge
1
and convicted the appellant for the commission of
offence of murder of Satyapal Singh under Section
302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as
“the IPC’) read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
2. Few facts need mention for disposal of the
appeal infra.
3. The appellant was prosecuted for commission
of the offence of murder of one Satyapal Singh
Chauhan by firing a bullet from his revolver on
01.12.1994. Due to gunshot injury caused to
Satyapal Singh from the short distance, he died
while he was being taken to the hospital after the
incident.
4. By order dt 13.11.1998, the learned Sessions
Judge, Farrukhabad acquitted the appellant under
Section 302 of IPC read with Section 25/27 of the
Arms Act. However, in an appeal filed by the State
2
against his acquittal, the High Court by impugned
order reversed the judgment of the Sessions Judge
and convicted the appellant for commission of
offence of murder of Satyapal Singh under Section
302 of IPC read with 25/27 of the Arms Act giving
rise to filing of this appeal by the accused.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and have also perused the evidence,
impugned order and the order of the Sessions
Judge.
6. Having scanned the evidence and keeping in
view the fact that it is a case of the reversal of the
acquittal order, we are inclined to concur with the
reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High
Court rather than to concur with the reasoning and
the conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge.
3
7. In other words, having gone through the entire
evidence on record, we are of the considered view
that the High Court was right in concluding that the
prosecution was able to prove the case against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The High
Court, therefore, rightly held that it was the
appellant and no one else who fired a bullet from
his revolver within a short range to Satypal Singh,
which caused his death immediately after the
incident. This finding of the High Court is based on
appreciation of evidence which was well within its
jurisdiction to do in its first appellate jurisdiction
and which it did rightly.
8. It was, however, brought to our notice that the
appellant has so far undergone more than 14 years
of jail sentence and he still remains in Jail
undergoing his sentence.
4
9. In our opinion, if that were the case then the
State can be directed to consider the appellant’s
case for his remission in terms of the relevant
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code
(hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) read with
Rules. In other words, the appellant is eligible for
his release by the State in terms of the Rules in
accordance with law depending upon a case made
out by him. The State can always pass appropriate
orders on appellant’s release provided a case to that
effect as provided in the Rules is made out.
10. We, therefore, grant liberty to the appellant to
apply to the State Government for consideration of
his case for release as provided in Cr.P.C. read with
the Rules provided the appellant is able to prove
that he has completed the mandatory period of his
sentence as prescribed in the Cr.P.C./Rules and
5
satisfy all necessary conditions to the satisfaction of
the State.
11. The Jail Authorities would do the needful on
behalf of the appellant and will accordingly forward
his application along with necessary details to the
Competent Authority of the State.
12. The Jail Authorities will complete the
formalities and send the appellant’s application as
directed above to the concerned Competent
authority of the State within three months from the
date of this order.
13. On receipt of the application, the competent
authority of the State will pass appropriate order
within 3 months strictly in accordance with law.
6
14. The Registry to send a copy of this order to the
appellant and the concerned Jail Authorities where
the appellant is presently undergoing jail sentence
within a week as an outer limit to enable them to
process the application as directed above.
15. With the aforesaid discussion and the
direction, the appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
……………………………………..J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

……………………………………….J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
October 23, 2018
7