NEW DELHI, SEPT 24: The Supreme Court has ruled that Sessions Courts cannot direct a murder convict to remain in prison for the rest of their natural life by excluding statutory provisions on remission and commutation, holding that such a special category of life sentence can be imposed only by Constitutional Courts.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi clarified that while 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 trial court.
The ruling came while deciding the criminal appeal of Naval Kishore and another convict in the 2009 triple-murder case in Ludhiana, Punjab, involving a woman and her two minor daughters.
The Sessions Court had convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life, directing them to remain behind bars “till rest of their life.”
The Punjab and Haryana High Court subsequently upheld both the conviction and sentence.
The Supreme Court, however, held that the Sessions Court lacked the authority to impose such a special form of life imprisonment that effectively excludes the statutory framework governing remission and commutation.
While upholding the convictions, the Supreme Court set aside the direction requiring the appellants to remain incarcerated for their entire natural lives.
The Bench instead modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without the benefit of statutory remission.
The Court emphasised that sentencing must remain within the framework prescribed by the legislature and that a Sessions Court cannot effectively create a separate category of punishment by taking away statutory powers relating to remission or commutation.
The Court examined the scope of Section 302 IPC, which prescribes death or imprisonment for life, besides fine, and noted that the provision does not expressly stipulate that every life sentence must exclude the statutory remission regime.
The judgment drew a distinction between ordinary life imprisonment and a special sentence requiring incarceration for the convict’s entire natural life without remission.
According to the ruling, Sessions Courts retain the power to award life imprisonment in murder cases, but cannot impose a direction that effectively removes the statutory remission and commutation mechanisms.
The authority to impose such a special category of sentence lies with the High Courts and the Supreme Court, subject to the applicable legal framework.
The case relates to the killings of Pinki alias Simran and her two minor daughters, Divya and Pooja, in Ludhiana in December 2009.
The ruling clarifies the limits of sentencing powers at the trial-court level while retaining the distinction between a statutory life sentence and a judicially imposed whole-life term without remission.
