Life Conviction For Remainder Of Natural Life Without Remission Can Only Be Passed By HCs Or SC And Not By Trial...
Life Conviction for Remainder of Natural Life Without Remission: Only High Courts or Supreme Court Can Pass Such Orders, Not Trial Courts
1. Introduction
Under Indian criminal law, a sentence of life imprisonment generally means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life. However, judicial practice and statutory provisions have evolved such that:
Life imprisonment often includes the possibility of remission or premature release after a period (usually 14 years).
Only High Courts and the Supreme Court have the power to impose life imprisonment without remission (i.e., for the remainder of natural life without any prospect of premature release).
Trial courts do not have the jurisdiction to order life imprisonment without remission.
2. Legal Basis
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and judicial precedents govern sentencing powers:
Section 433 of the CrPC provides for remission of sentences by the government, but this remission is subject to court’s recommendation or rules.
Trial courts, while sentencing, can impose life imprisonment but cannot exclude the possibility of remission.
The power to impose life imprisonment without remission lies exclusively with the High Courts and the Supreme Court, generally during appeals, revisions, or reference cases.
3. Why Only High Courts and Supreme Court?
Gravity and Finality: Life imprisonment without remission is an extremely harsh sentence. It involves denying the convict any hope of release, which is a significant deprivation of liberty.
Judicial Restraint: Such orders require careful consideration of facts, circumstances, and mitigating factors, best done at appellate levels.
Trial Courts’ Role: Trial courts deal with fact-finding and determining guilt. Sentencing for life imprisonment is part of the process, but excluding remission is considered a sentencing enhancement suitable only for appellate courts.
Checks and Balances: This division ensures that no excessive or irreversible punishment is imposed without adequate judicial scrutiny.
4. Relevant Case Laws
a) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) - Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty in rare cases but laid down guidelines on sentencing.
It stressed that life imprisonment is a serious sentence but does not automatically mean imprisonment for life without remission.
The Court observed that remission is part of the sentencing framework unless explicitly excluded by the appellate courts.
b) Mewa Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1983) – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that trial courts do not have jurisdiction to impose life imprisonment without remission.
The power to exclude remission lies with the High Court or Supreme Court while dealing with appeals or reference matters.
c) Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate (1992) – Supreme Court
The Court reiterated that life imprisonment should normally allow for remission.
Only courts of higher jurisdiction can direct imprisonment for life without remission based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
d) State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Datt (2001) – Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court held that a trial court cannot pass an order for life imprisonment without remission.
Only the High Court or Supreme Court can impose such a sentence after due consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors.
5. Practical Implications
When a trial court sentences an accused to life imprisonment, it must leave the question of remission open.
If the prosecution or victim desires a harsher sentence, they must appeal to the High Court or Supreme Court to seek life imprisonment without remission.
The appellate courts can then enhance the sentence based on the gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused, and other relevant factors.
This ensures fairness and judicial oversight in imposing the most severe form of punishment.
6. Summary
| Aspect | Position |
|---|---|
| Power to impose life imprisonment | Trial courts have this power |
| Power to impose life without remission | Only High Courts and Supreme Court |
| Reason | Sentencing severity, judicial scrutiny, fairness |
| Legal foundation | CrPC, Supreme Court judgments |
| Implication | Trial court sentences must allow for remission unless altered on appeal |
7. Conclusion
The principle that life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission can only be imposed by High Courts or the Supreme Court safeguards the rights of the accused and maintains judicial prudence. It ensures that such a severe and irreversible punishment is passed only after thorough appellate scrutiny.
RELATED Blog
0 comments