Life Imprisonment Quandaries: Legal Perspectives And Sentencing Complexity

Duration of Life Imprisonment:

Punishment of life imprisonment is generally seen as an alternative to capital punishments. If there is any circumstance favouring the accused such as lack of intention to commit the crime, possibility of reformation, young age of the accused, accused not being a menace to the society, no previous criminal record etc., the accused may avoid capital punishment. The Court opined that the crime is important but so is the criminal and hence the Supreme Court in recent past has substituted death penalty with fixed term sentences exceeding 14 years. In appropriate cases, imposing a fixed term sentence creates a possibility for the convict to re-integrate into society after serving his/her sentence. It strikes a delicate balance between the victims' plea for justice and rehabilitative justice for the convicts. (Shankar Kishanrao Khade vs. State of Mahrashtra[1])

Dealing with the question concerning the duration of punishment of imprisonment for life, it is pertinent to quote the observation of the apex court in Duryodhan Rout vs. State of Orissa [2] wherein it was held that:

“17. Imprisonment for life is not confined to 14 years of imprisonment. A reading of Section 55 IPC and Section 433 and 433A Cr.P.C. would indicate that only the appropriate Government can commute the sentence for imprisonment of life for a term not exceeding fourteen years or exceeds the release for such person unless he has served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.

Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code merely relates to calculating fractions of terms of punishment by providing a numerical value of 20 years to life imprisonment.

Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code lists the punishments to which offenders are liable under the Code which reads as follows: “First-Death;

Secondly-Imprisonment for life;

Fourthly-Imprisonment, which is of two Descriptions, namely:-

(1)Rigorous, that is, with hard labour;

(2)Simple Fifty-Forfeiture of property;

Sixthly-Fine.” Therefore, a person sentenced to life imprisonment is bound to serve the remainder of his life in prison unless the sentence is commuted by the appropriate Government in terms of the Section 55, 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Thus, it can be inferred that, life imprisonment in India goes beyond a fixed 14-year term. Sections 55, 433, and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure dictate that only the appropriate Government can commute a life sentence, either reducing it to a term not exceeding 14 years or releasing the individual after serving at least 14 years. Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code aids in calculating fractions of the term, assigning a numerical value of 20 years for life imprisonment. Essentially, a person sentenced to life imprisonment is obligated to serve the rest of their life in prison unless the appropriate Government formally commutes the sentence in accordance with the specified legal provisions.

Dilemma in Sentencing:

In the Indian legal system, the court possesses the authority to diminish the severity of the punishment by taking into account multiple factors related to the case and any mitigating circumstances that may be present. The underlying philosophy in India is to adhere to the reformative theory of punishment. This means that the punishment meted out should strike a balance – it should neither be excessively severe nor overly lenient to the extent that it fails to fulfil its intended purpose of making an impact on the offender and serving as a deterrent to others. The prevailing belief is that punishment should be designed in a manner that fosters personal growth and a change in an individual's mindset.

While pronouncing the sentence in a criminal trial, there may arise a situation wherein the court finds that a particular sentence may be excessive and unduly harsh or it may be highly disproportionately inadequate. When an appellant comes to the apex Court carrying a death sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, the apex Court may find, that the case just falls short of the rarest of the rare category and may feel somewhat reluctant in endorsing the death sentence. But at the same time, having regard to the nature of the crime, the Court may strongly feel that a sentence of life imprisonment subject to remission normally works out to a term of 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. What then should the Court do? If the Court's option is limited only to two punishments, one a sentence of imprisonment, for all intents and purposes, of not more than 14 years and the other death, the Court may feel tempted and find itself nudged into endorsing the death penalty. Such a course would indeed be disastrous. A far more just, reasonable and proper course would be to expand the options and to take over what, as a matter of fact, lawfully belongs to the Court i.e. the vast hiatus between 14 years' imprisonment and death. It needs to be emphasised that the Court would take recourse to the expanded option primarily because in the facts of the case, the sentence of 14 years' imprisonment would amount to no punishment at all.

This dilemma was dealt by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. V Sriharan [3] wherein the apex court reiterated its judgement in Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka [4] held that:

“87.What all it seeks to declare by stating so was that within the prescribed limit of the punishment of life imprisonment, having regard to the nature of offence committed by imposing the life imprisonment for a specified period would be proportionate to the crime as well as the interest of the victim, whose interest is also to be taken care of by the Court, when considering the nature of punishment to be imposed.

104. We, therefore, reiterate that the power derived from the Penal Code for any 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 only by the Supreme Court and not by any other court in this country. To put it differently, the power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convict's life as an alternate to death penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior court.”

From the perusal of the observations of the court quoted above it is clear that it approved an alternative third sentencing option in cases where the accused are convicted of serious and grave crimes which carried with it the option of capital sentence. Realising that a life sentence per se can lead to early release of accused upon their undergoing the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 433A, and highlighting that the asymmetry in state rules with respect to minimum incarceration in different kinds of life sentences. Further the power to pass a sentence in excess of life imprisonment, but lesser than capital punishment is held to be limited to High Court and the Supreme Court only.

The intricate landscape of life imprisonment in the Indian legal system extends beyond a fixed 14-year term, as elucidated by Sections 55, 433, and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judiciary, through landmark decisions such as Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa (supra), has clarified that life imprisonment entails serving the entire natural life of the offender unless formally commuted by the appropriate Government. Additionally, the sentencing framework outlined in Sections 53 to 75 of the Indian Penal Code offers a spectrum of punishments, including the authority to convert death sentences and commute life imprisonment. The evolving philosophy of punishment in India emphasizes a balance between severity and leniency, aligned with the reformative theory. The dilemma faced by courts in determining sentences, as exemplified in Union of India v. V Sriharan (supra), underscores the need for a nuanced approach, allowing for alternative sentencing options beyond the conventional binary of imprisonment or death. The discretion to pass a sentence in excess of life imprisonment, albeit lesser than capital punishment, is rightfully reserved for the High Court and the Supreme Court, reflecting a judicious recognition of the complexities inherent in the criminal justice system.

Views are personal.