Special Life Sentence Without Remission Can Be Imposed Only by Constitutional Courts: SC
New Delhi, September 24 :
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a Sessions Court, while convicting an accused in a murder case, cannot direct that the convict remain in prison for the remainder of his or her natural life by excluding the statutory provisions relating to remission and commutation.
A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held that although imprisonment for life ordinarily extends to the remainder of a convict’s natural life, the statutory powers of remission and commutation cannot be curtailed by a Sessions Court.
The Court clarified that the power to impose a special category of life imprisonment without the possibility of statutory remission rests with the Constitutional Courts—the High Courts and the Supreme Court—and not with a trial court.
SC Modifies Sentence in Triple-Murder Case
The judgment came while hearing the criminal appeal of Naval Kishore and another convict in connection with the 2009 triple-murder case in Ludhiana, Punjab, involving a woman and her two minor daughters.
The trial court had convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life, directing that they remain in prison “till rest of their life.”
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had subsequently upheld the conviction and sentence.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the Sessions Court lacked the authority to impose such a special sentence that effectively excluded the statutory remission and commutation regime.
Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified to 25 Years
While upholding the convictions, the Supreme Court set aside the direction requiring the appellants to remain in prison for the rest of their natural lives.
The Court instead modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without the benefit of statutory remission.
The Bench observed that the punishment prescribed by law must remain within the limits laid down by the legislature and that a Sessions Court cannot create a special category of punishment by effectively removing the Government’s statutory powers of remission or commutation.
SC Examines Scope of Section 302 IPC
The Court noted that Section 302 IPC prescribes death or imprisonment for life, along with liability to fine, but does not expressly provide that imprisonment for life under the provision must necessarily exclude the statutory remission framework.
The judgment also distinguished ordinary life imprisonment from a special sentence requiring incarceration for the convict’s entire natural life without remission.
The ruling therefore establishes an important distinction between life imprisonment as prescribed under Section 302 IPC and a special category sentence excluding remission, with the latter falling within the sentencing powers of Constitutional Courts. Key Legal Takeaway
The Supreme Court’s ruling makes clear that.Sessions Courts can award life imprisonment for murder.They cannot direct that the convict remain in prison for the entire natural life while excluding statutory remission or commutation.Such a special category sentence can be imposed by Constitutional Courts within the applicable legal framework.In the present case, the Supreme Court retained the convictions but modified the sentences to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without statutory remission.
The judgment was delivered in the criminal appeal arising from the murder of Pinki alias Simran and her two minor daughters, Divya and Pooja, in Ludhiana in December 2009. (KNC)