HC: Life Imprisonment without remission is not within the Jurisdiction of Trial Courts [Read Judgement]

Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that life imprisonment with deprivation of remissions of sentence or of parole is not to be dealt by the trial courts. It falls beyond their scope.

Case of the Petitioner

The petitioner has been sentenced to imprisonment for the whole of her neutral life with denial of remission by a trial court in 2018 for murder and other offences, on account of her involvement in Ram Pal’s case.   A co-convict was also sentenced on similar terms; however the co-convict was allowed parole despite the life imprisonment. Thus the denial of the parole or remission to the petitioner was contended by the counsel of the petitioner.

Reasoning of the Court

The Bench while hearing a petition challenging the impugned order of the Hisar Divisional Commissioner wherein the request for parole in the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment held a contrary view and stated that the power to impose such punishments is only within the limits of Higher Constitutional courts.

The Bench referred the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. Sridharan wherein it was explicitly stated that the power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration till the end of the convict’s life an as alternate form of punishment to death penalty can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior Court. The Court reinstated that it is beyond the jurisdictional limits of the any other Inferior Courts other than the Supreme Court or High Court.

Further the Court noted that the petitioner’s challenge to her conviction was also before the Court in a separate case, hence the Bench found it necessary to decide the substantial question of law first in line, as the appeal was unlikely to be heard.

On these grounds, the Court set aside the impugned order thus rejecting the parole and instead ordered to reconsider contention of parole before August 31, 2020. Thus, the Bench at first dealt with the contention of quantum of punishment that can be dictated by the Courts and ordered the copy of the judgment to be circulated among the jail authorities in the State. Pursuant to the above stated order the impugned order rejecting the parole was set aside and was ordered to be reconsidered.

Case details

Before: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Title: Savitri v. State of Haryana

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr Murlidhar and Justice Avneesh Jhinghan

Read Order@LatestLaws.com