The Author, Mahima Chowdhary is a 2nd year law student at Faculty of Law, Delhi University.
Life imprisonment can be defined as a legal sanction which is sanctioned by States around the world to punish wrongdoers with lifelong imprisonment. Over the past one decade there has been a substantial change within the penal policy because of which the world has moved towards the prohibition of capital punishment Thus, resulting in an increase in life imprisonment as an alternative as well as substitute to death penalty.
As per the recent report of United Nations based on the goal 16 for sustainable development goals, life imprisonment is world’s most used forms of punishment mainly because, most of the times courts around the world believe in passing life sentence more than capital punishment as it is revocable in nature. Furthermore, it has been recorded in the year 2014 that more than 5 lakh people are serving life sentence around the world and in comparison to the statistics recorded in the year 2000, which was as low as 2 lakh 60 thousand, the report has shown that there has been an increase of almost 85% in the number of people serving life sentence for the last 14 years.
Life imprisonment as per Statutory Legal statues: -
There are numerous statutes in India that provide provisions relating to life-term penance. Some of the important provisions are stated and analysed below:
Under IPC the Section 55 states:
“ Commutation of sentence of imprisonment for life:
In every case in which sentence of [imprisonment] for life shall have been passed, [the appropriate Government] may, without the consent of the offender, commute the penance for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Section 55, I.P.C. provides that when sentence of imprisonment for life has been passed, the appropriate Government may without the consent of the prisoner commute the penance for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years. This section empowers the appropriate Government to commute the sentence of imprisonment of life. Exercise of such right is at the discretion of the appropriate government. This section does not lay down that life-term penance shall be an imprisonment for fourteen years and a prisoner is not to be automatically released after expiry of fourteen years of imprisonment. It is for the appropriate Government to commute the sentence and for this purpose Rules have been framed by the State Government.
Section 57 – Fractions of terms of penance
In calculating fractions of terms of penance, [imprisonment] for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to [imprisonment] for twenty years.
Section 57 of I.P.C. provides that in calculating fractions of terms of imprisonment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years. Section 57 does not say that imprisonment for life shall be deemed to be transportation for 20 years. For all purposes, imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be treated as imprisonment for whole of the remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life”.
Under the Code of Wrongdoer Procedure Sec 432 provides for the following power to remit sentences:-
“Power to suspend or remit sentences.
“(1) When any person has been sentenced to penance for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions that the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the penance to which he has been sentenced.
Section 433 – Power to commute sentence.
The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person-sentenced commute –
A sentence of death, for any other penance provided by the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
A sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine;
A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced, or sentenced, or for fine;
A sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine”.
Section 433A:- Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases.”
In spite of anything contained in Section 432, where a sentence of confinement perpetually is constrained on conviction of a person for an offence for which downfall is one of the orders given by legal statues or where a sentence of death constrained on an individual has been driven under Section 433 into one of confinement everlastingly( life sentence), such individual won't be released from prison with the exception or on the off chance that he has served fourteen years of confinement or life-term penance. The Government has control under Sections 432 and 433, Cr. P.C. to suspend or dispatch or drive the sentence while Section 433A of Cr. P.C. powers confinements on the powers of decrease or substitution in explicit cases.
Under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Government can dispatch the whole or any bit of sentence to which the individual is prosecuted. Under Section 433 of the Code, the reasonable Government can drive the sentence of confinement for life to confinement for a term not outperforming multiyear or to a fine. Fragment 433A was endorsed to deny less than ideal release before completion of 14 years of detainment to such convicts who stand condemned for a capital offence. The reason of confinement experienced by a charged as an under starter prisoner against the sentence of life confinement can be set-off just if the appropriate master passes a solicitation under Section 432 or Section 433 of the Code. Without such a solicitation passed, and isolated from the courses of action of the material Jail Manual, detainment forever would mean detainment for rest of life.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ON LIFE IMPRISONMENT
According to the case of Swamy Shraddananda .[1]”The matter may be looked at from a slightly different angle. The issue of sentencing has two aspects. A sentence may be excessive and unduly harsh or it may be highly disproportionately inadequate. When an appellant comes to this court carrying a death sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, this Court may find, as in the present appeal that the case just falls short of the rarest of the rare category and may feel somewhat reluctant in endorsing the death sentence. But at the same time, having regard to the nature of the crime, the Court may strongly feel that a sentence of life imprisonment that subject to remission normally works out to a term of 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. If the Court's option is limited only to two punishments, one a sentence of imprisonment, for all intents and purposes, of not more than 14 years and the other death, the court may feel tempted and find itself nudged into endorsing the death penalty. Such a course would indeed be disastrous. Hence it imposed restriction on power of appropriate government to commute life sentence”
The cases of Sahib Hussain @ Sahib Jan v. State of Rajasthan, and Gurvail Singh @ Gala v. State of Punjab, also favoured SwamyShraddananda’s judgement of imposing restriction on power of appropriate government
Certain issues emerged in the case of Sriharan v UOI[2]
1. Whether imprisonment for life in terms of Section 53 read with Section 45 of the Penal Code meant imprisonment for rest of the life of the prisoner or a convict undergoing life imprisonment has a right to claim remission and whether the as per the principles enunciated in Swamy Shraddananda , a special category of sentence may be made for the very few cases where the death penalty might be substituted by the punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term in excess of fourteen years and to put that category beyond application of remission?
Article 72 or Article 161 of the Constitution will always be available being Constitutional Remedies untouchable by the Court.
2. Whether the “Appropriate Government” is permitted to exercise the power of remission under Sections 432/433 of the Code after the parallel power has been exercised by the President under Article 72 or the Governor under Article 161 or by this Court in its Constitutional power under Article 32 as in this case?
The exercise of power under Sections 432 and 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure will be available to the Appropriate Government even if such consideration was made earlier and exercised under Article 72 by the President or under Article 161 by the Governor. As far as the application of Article 32 of the Constitution by this Court is concerned, it is held that the powers under Sections 432 and 433 are to be exercised by the Appropriate Government statutorily and it is not for this Court to exercise the said power and it is always left to be decided by the Appropriate Government
Life Imprisonment an Alternative for Capital Punishment??
Capital punishment or death penalty can be defined as a punishment which is passed against a criminal, who has committed a heinous crime. Under capital punishment, the life of such a criminal is put to an end by hanging him or following such similar methods. While some countries grant capital punishment for committing those crimes which are considered barbaric, there are others too along with the united nationals who believe that capital punishment is the gross violation of human rights of an individual and does not serve the purpose of reformation.
Therefore, various states presently grant life imprisonment to even those criminals who have committed serious crimes, and the very reason for doing so is to protect the right to life of the accused, because even he is considered to be the subject of the human right law of that particular state. Not only this, but the United Nations along with various other welfare organizations , do not support capital punishment because it does not serve the purpose of
of punishing the criminal and rather provides him within an easy escape from all of his wrong doings through the simple as well as easy punishment of death.
Furthermore, various legal researchers have also stated that life imprisonment without parole or without remission is considered to be an equivalent punishment to capital punishment, which allows the state to punish the wrongdoer, without taking away the life of such criminal, who has committed a barbaric crime.
The retentionists of capital punishment often assert that death penalty would incapacitate the offender taking to crime however this assumption is illusionary and based on sheer probability.
The survey that was undertaken post the Furman v Georgia judgement unveiled the fact that 98.7% of the 558 prisoners who were spared execution did not take to crime in future.
This rules out the presence of any cogent evidence of incapacitation upon infliction of capital punishment.
It is also asserted that there is no statistical proof to support the deterrent effect of death penalty( Gregg v Georgia)
A person is never a born criminal, it is the circumstances that unfold in the society that shape his psychology.
The report of Amnesty International and PUCL in 2008 revealed that death penalty in india is awarded in a non uniform and inconsistent manner.
The case of Ankush Maruti Shinde v State of Maharashtra ( 2019) is a glaring example of the same.
The Supreme Court acquitted six accused who had been sentenced to death by the trial court after they had already spent 16 years in jail.The court also ordered re investigation in a crime that was committed in june 2003.
One of the accused in the case was a juvenile who had been kept under solitary confinement and others were aged between 25-30 years who lost a considerable portion of their lives.
The irrevocable nature of death penalty makes it a punishment which our criminal justice system does not support.
The Death Penalty India report published by National Law University Delhi revealed that about 15 convicts who had been sentenced to death and were awaiting execution claimed to be juveniles at the time the crime was committed.
No such claims were found to have been considered in their trials.
In some cases it was reported that the sentence was announced the same day of conviction.
It is imperative as per section 248(2)CrPC that trial courts hold a sentence hearing before inflicting the sentence. Moreover section 354(3) CrPC states that when convction is for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life or imprisonment for a term, it is essential to state the reasons for the same and in case of capital punishment, it is necessary to mention the special reasons.
Hence, if sentence hearing is not conducted as a mandatory step by the trials courts, it can lead to inconsistency in awarding punishment.
The instances of broken legal aid, custodial violence and lack of representation manifest the drawbacks in the criminal justice system.
The plea taken by India in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case at the ICJ was lack of consular access provided by Pakistan in violation of article 36 of the vienna convention and ironically, in various cases in India, the accused does not have access to the same.( Death penalty India Report)
As per the Steiker’s report published in the USA, the cost of execution is estimated to be $1.8-3million and that of life imprisonment without remission is $1.13 million.
Amidst this, it is essential to balance victim rights and the rights of the accused.India can therefore consider Life imprisonment without remission,as evolved in the case of shraddananda and sriharan, as a substitute to death penalty.
Picture Source :
