Life Sentence Means Imprisonment Till Last Breath; Court Can't Fix A Period Of Incarceration Of Life Convict: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the sentence of imprisonment of life is till the natural life of the accused which cannot be fixed in years by the High Court. 

The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma observed thus while upholding the life sentence awarded to Five murder convicts by the Trial Court in a case that dates back to the year 1997.

Significantly, when it was argued that one of the convicts, Kallu, who has already served about 20-21 years in jail, be released after commuting his sentence for life imprisonment to the period undergone by him, the Court clarified that it is not permissible for the Court to fix the period of life sentence to certain years, in as much as, the legal position is that the period of life sentence is the natural life of a person.

The case in brief 

The Court was hearing three connected appeals filed by five murder accused sentenced to life imprisonment. Since one of them died during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, the appeal on his behalf was abated.

All five accused [Kallu, Phool Singh, Jogendra (now dead), Hari, and Charan] were held guilty of murdering one Jai Singh with their 12 bore guns and rifles in a daring manner. The High Court, while affirming trial Court's finding observed thus:

"In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it can be seen that the prosecution had proved each and every circumstance leading to the homicidal death of deceased Jai Singh from cogent and trustworthy evidence. Both ocular and medical evidence corroborate each other. No infirmity, therefore, could be found in the judgment of conviction of the trial Court. The sentence provided by the trial Court is minimum."

The question of remission before the Court

When prayer for remission of the sentence was made before the Court, the Court took into account Section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the Court to impose a sentence authorized by law.

For the purpose of the instant matter, the Court was concerned with Section 302 IPC, which authorizes the Court to either award life imprisonment or death. It becomes clear that the minimum sentence for offence of committing murder is life imprisonment and the maximum is death. In view of this, the Court noted that the Court cannot curtail the minimum sentence as authorized by the statute.

Now, as to what do we mean by the term life imprisonment, the HC referred to Gopal Vinayak Godse vs State of Maharastra and others AIR 1961 SC 600 case, wherein the Apex Court had held that the term means the whole of the period of convict's natural life which is subject to the power of the appropriate government to grant remission under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with section 433-A.

The Court also referred to a 2016 decision of the SC in the case of Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa (2015) 2 SCC 783, wherein it was held that a person sentenced to life imprisonment is bound to serve the remainder of his life in life imprisonment unless the sentence is commuted by the appropriate Government.

Importantly, the Court further noted that the Division Bench of the High Court in two cases [Criminal appeal no.2135 of 2013 (Savir vs State of U.P) and Criminal appeal no.1839 of 2004 (Veersen vs State of U.P)], had wrongly fixed a term of life imprisonment to 14.6 years and 15 years respectively; under Section 302 IPC.

Therefore, the Court held these two judgments to be per in curium as they wrong interpreted the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Maru Ram v. Union Of India & Anr 1980 AIR 2147 and Vikas Yadav vs State of U.P and others (2016) 9 SCC 541.

Now, with regard to the Case at hand, the Court observed that as per law of remission, it is within the discretion of the State Government to grant remission to life convict after he has served a minimum of 14 years of sentence in jail.

However, noticing that the appellant Kallu remained in jail for 20- 21 years, the Court made it open for the jail authorities to assess the condition of his release from jail on remission of his sentence and recommend the same to the State Authorities, if the case of the appellant falls within the four corners of the policy framed by the State Government in the matter of remission of life convict.

In view of the above, the appeals stood dismissed, and since, the appellants Phool Singh and Kallu are already in jail, therefore, no order was made in their regard. However, the Court concerned was directed to take the appellants namely Hari @ Harish Chandra and Charan in custody and send them to jail to serve out the remaining sentence.

Case title - Phool Singh And Another v. State of U.P. and connected appeals 

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 228

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment