Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 432 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 45, 53 – Power to impose a modified punishment – Special category sentencing to life imprisonment in excess of 14 years – Appellant was convicted for having committed offence u/s. 376, 377, 506 and was sentenced to life imprisonment – Trial Court directed that the appellant should not be given any clemency by the State before he spent at least 20 years in jail – Same was confirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held: It is settled that the power to impose a modified punishment within the punishment provided for in the Penal Code for such specified offences can only be exercised by the High Court and in the event of further appeal, by the Supreme Court, and not by any other Court in the country – In the light of this settled legal position, it was clearly not within the domain of the Additional Sessions Judge to impose a restriction that the term of the appellant’s life imprisonment should be for at least 20 years and that he should not be given any clemency till then – Such power could only be exercised by the High Courts or by Supreme Court – In the instant case, the child was raped by her father during the month of August, 2012, so the amended provisions s.376(2)(f) and s.376(3) have no role to play – Now, the maximum punishment prescribed by law is imprisonment for life with nothing further – Even in such cases, it would be a parody of justice to allow the convicts so sentenced to avail the benefit of remissions and the like, liberally conferred by the State, and cut short the length of their life sentence to a mere 14 years – Special category sentencing to life imprisonment in excess of 14 years by fixing a lengthier term would be available to the High Courts and this Court, even in cases where the maximum punishment, permissible in law and duly imposed, is life imprisonment with nothing further – Exercise of such power must be restricted to grave cases – Appellant herein was found guilty of one of the most monstrous and horrific of offences – Therefore, the appellant directed to serve the life imprisonment for a minimum of 20 years of actual incarceration before he can seek remissions under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other enacted law – Constitution of India – Arts.72 and 161.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Affirming the view taken in Swamy
Shraddananda, the majority opinion in V. Sriharan observed that it could be said without any scope for controversy that, when by way of a judicial decision after a detailed analysis, having regard to the proportionality of the crime committed, it is decided that the offender deserves to be punished with the sentence of life imprisonment, i.e., till the end of his life or for a specific period of
20 years or 30 years or 40 years, such a conclusion should survive without any interruption. It was, therefore, held that in order to ensure that the punishment imposed, which is legally provided for in the Penal Code read along with Criminal Procedure Code, operates without any interruption, the inherent power of the Court concerned should empower the Court, in public interest as well as in the interest of the society at large, to make it certain that such punishment will operate, as imposed, by stating that no remission or other liberal approach should come into effect to nullify such imposition. It was further observed that no prohibition is prescribed in the Penal Code, or for that matter any of the provisions where death penalty or life imprisonment is provided for, that imprisonment cannot be imposed for a specific period within the said life span and, when life imprisonment means the whole life span of the person convicted, it cannot be said that the Court which is empowered to impose the said punishment cannot specify the period up to which the said sentence of life should remain, befitting the nature of the crime committed. The majority opinion, therefore, concluded by stating that the ratio laid down in Swamy Shraddananda, that a special category of sentence, instead of death, can be substituted by the punishment of imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 14 years and that category can be put beyond application of remission, is well founded. It was further held that the power to impose a modified punishment within the punishment provided for in the Penal Code for such specified offences can only be exercised by the High Court and in the event of further appeal, by the Supreme Court, and not by any other Court in the country. [Para 9][486-G-H; 487-A-D]
2. In the light of this settled legal position, it was clearly not within the domain of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to impose a restriction that the term of the appellant’s life imprisonment should be for at least 20 years and that he should not be given any clemency till then. Such power could only be exercised by the High Courts or by this Court. No doubt, the Delhi High Court confirmed the sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but mere affirmation of the hollow exercise of a power, that was not conferred, by the Additional Sessions Judge does not qualify as an independent exercise by the High Court and would not suffice in terms of the legal requirement. It is only the High Courts or this Court that would have the power, upon proper application of mind, to take recourse to special category sentencing, depending upon the nature of the offence and its gravity. To that extent, the sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, without legal basis. [Para 10][487-E-G]
3. The observations manifest the applicability of the same principle in cases where the maximum punishment prescribed by law is imprisonment for life with nothing further. Even in such cases, it would be a parody of justice to allow the convicts so sentenced to avail the benefit of remissions and the like, liberally conferred by the State, and cut short the length of their life sentence to a mere 14 years. The law laid down in Swamy Shraddananda and V. Sriharan with regard to special category sentencing to life imprisonment in excess of 14 years by fixing a lengthier term would be available to the High Courts and this Court, even in cases where the maximum punishment, permissible in law and duly imposed, is life imprisonment with nothing further. However, the exercise of such power must be restricted to grave cases, where allowing the convict sentenced to life imprisonment to seek release after a 14-year-term would tantamount to trivializing the very punishment imposed on such convict. [Para 15][491-G-H; 492-A-B]
4. The ends of justice would be sufficiently served if the life imprisonment of the appellant is for a minimum of 20 years of actual incarceration before he can seek remissions under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other enacted law. [Para 17][492-F]
Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107 : [1981]
1 SCR 1196; Union of India v. V. Sriharan Alias Murugan and Others (2016) 7 SCC 1 : [2015] 14 SCR
613 – followed.
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 600; Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 : [2008] 11 SCR 93; Gouri Shankar v. State of Punjab (2021) 3 SCC 380; Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka 2023 SCC OnLine SC 345; Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Another (1992) 3 SCC 204 : [1992] 2 SCR 921 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.