Trial Courts Can't Impose Life Sentence 'For Full Life', Pre-Mature Release During Pendency Of Convict's Appeal Not Barred: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that trial courts cannot impose life sentence on a convict with a rider that the sentence will extend to 'full life' or 'till the natural death' of the convict. Justice Deepak Gupta clarified that such a rider can only be imposed by the High Court or the Supreme Court.

"...there remains no doubt that order of the trial Court in sentencing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life, with a rider to extend to full life, is clearly in violation of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others. Such a sentence can be passed either by this Court or by Hon’ble Supreme Court only," said the bench.

It thus held that pendency of an appeal preferred by a convict against such order of conviction won't bar the convict from seeking pre-mature release in light of State's policy dated 08.08.2011.

Ravdeep Kaur was convicted by a sessions court in Chandigarh in a murder case and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life till death. Her appeal against such conviction is pending before the High Court and in the meanwhile she sought premature release.

The Superintendent of Central Jail, Patiala submitted that prisoners awarded punishment till death or imprisonment till natural life are not eligible under the premature release policy of Punjab Government.

It was further submitted that Kaur was convicted and sentenced to three years in 2014 under the Punjab Good Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC because she did not surrender after being released on emergency parole.

Citing Neki Nalwa vs. State of Punjab and others (2017) the Court said, "case of the petitioner for pre-mature release cannot be withheld, simply for the reason of pendency of the appeal before the Division Bench of this court."

Furthermore, the Court noted that the female prisoner had already undergone almost twice the custody period than required as per the State policy for premature release.

"It is, thus, clear from the aforesaid details of the custody period that petitioner has already undergone actual custody period of more than 17 years and 2 months and total sentence including the remission of 22 years and 7 months, which is much more than minimum prescribed period of 8 years of actual custody and 12 years of total imprisonment with remission," said the Court.

The Court also rejected the contention that her case cannot be considered in view of jail conviction in 2014. "...since the Petitioner is already undergoing life imprisonment, therefore, even if she has been convicted and sentenced subsequently, the subsequent sentence is to run concurrently with the earlier sentence of life imprisonment," said the Court.

Justice Gupta also added that the jail offence was committed in February 2014 i.e., more than 9 years ago. "She has already been convicted and punished for that offence. Appeal against conviction is pending. Sentence has already been suspended by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala. In such circumstances, the conviction and jail offence in question cannot be the reason to withhold the case of the petitioner for premature release," said the Court.

While directing the state authorities to consider the case of petitioner for premature release, the Court  in light of its policy dated 08.08.2011, the Court said..."It is further directed that till the decision is taken by the competent authority regarding premature release of the petitioner as per this order, she be released on interim bail on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the ld. CJM concerned."

Court said that till the appeal is decided, Court will have to strike a balance. It clarified that its order is subject to the final outcome of the Petitioner’s appeal. In case, on disposal of the appeal, the Appellate Court finds that petitioner was required to undergo imprisonment for life till her natural life, then the petitioner will have to surrender before the concerned authorities or as may be directed by the concerned Appellate Court.

Appearance: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate, with Ajaivir Singh, Advocate, for the Petitioner.

P.S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 191

Case Title: Ravdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Click here to read/download the order