Recently, the Supreme Court clarified that a Sessions Court lacks the authority to impose a sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life without the possibility of remission, holding that such power vests exclusively in Constitutional Courts. While upholding the conviction for a brutal murder, the Court decisively intervened on sentencing, observing that statutory and constitutional powers of remission cannot be curtailed by a trial court.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a gruesome crime involving the death of a widow with five children, who was set ablaze after resisting repeated sexual advances by the accused, a relative by marriage. The prosecution's case established that the accused entered the victim’s hut, poured kerosene on her, and set her on fire, resulting in burn injuries that proved fatal after several days. Medical evidence confirmed the homicidal nature of the death, with extensive burns being the cause. The conviction rested substantially on consistent dying declarations recorded by both a police officer and a Magistrate in the presence of a doctor, each clearly implicating the accused and disclosing the motive behind the crime. The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed life imprisonment “till natural life” while also directing the denial of set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This sentence was affirmed by the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court, limited primarily to the legality of the sentence imposed.
Contentions:
The Appellant contended that even assuming the conviction to be valid, the Sessions Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing that the sentence of life imprisonment would operate till the end of the convict’s natural life without remission. Relying on established precedent, it was argued that the power to impose such a restrictive sentence lies only with the Apex Court and the High Courts. It was further submitted that the statutory right of set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be taken away by a trial court, as the provision is mandatory in nature.
On the other hand, the State defended the sentence by pointing to the extreme brutality of the offence and urged that the punishment imposed reflected the gravity of the crime. The prosecution relied on precedents where courts had approved special category sentences and argued that the Sessions Court’s approach was justified in the facts of the case, given the manner in which the offence was committed.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that “The sentence of life imprisonment no doubt means the entire life, subject only to the remission and commutation provided under Cr. PC and also to Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be curtailed by a Sessions Court. Nor can the Sessions Court, a creation of the Cr.PC curtail the provision under Section 428, Cr.PC, available in the Code which created it” The Court held that “The power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission was conferred only on the Constitutional Courts and not on the Sessions Courts.”
Further, the Court observed that “life imprisonment awarded would be for the rest of the life, the power to grant remission and commutation under Sections 432 to 435 Cr.PC cannot be curtailed by the Sessions Court, when the remission as provided under the Constitution was declared to be not permissible of interference by the Constitutional Courts. The power of alternate sentencing to cover the hiatus between 14 years and death, cannot be applied by the Sessions Courts. Hence, the sentence of life imprisonment cannot be directed to be till the end of natural life, by the Sessions Court which direction would be in conflict with the provisions of the Cr. PC.”
The Court stated that “the statutory imprimatur in Section 428, Cr. PC is that the period of detention undergone by an accused during the investigation, inquiry or trial of a case, before the date of conviction in the case shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on the accused, as the sentence on such conviction.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Apex Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, deleting the directions mandating incarceration till the end of natural life and denying remission. The Court further directed that the statutory benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be extended to the appellant. The conviction and sentences imposed for the remaining offences were affirmed, with a direction that all sentences shall run concurrently.
Case Title: Kiran v. State of Karnataka
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 15786 of 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Hon’ble Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR Sangeeta Kumar, Adv. Vidushi Garg
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR Sanchit Garga, Advs. Shashwat Jaiswal, Kunal Rana, Diksha Arora, Bhanu Pratap Singh
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :