Constitutional Courts Can Impose Life Sentence For Fixed Term Without Remission Even In Cases Where Death Penalty Wasn't Imposed : Supreme Court

In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a Constitutional Court can order that the life sentence in a case should run for a minimum term without remission, even in a case where death sentence was not imposed.

Even if the case does not fall within the category of "rarest of the rare" case so as to warrant death penalty, a Constitutional Court can award fixed-term life sentence. 

"Even in a case where capital punishment is not imposed or is not proposed, the Constitutional Courts can always exercise the power of imposing a modified or fixed­ term sentence by directing that a life sentence, as contemplated by “secondly” in Section 53 of the IPC, shall be of a fixed period of more than fourteen years, for example, of twenty years, thirty years and so on", observed a bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal. The fixed punishment cannot be for a period less than 14 years in view of the mandate of Section 433A of Cr.P.C, the bench added.

Holding so, the bench ordered that the convict in the case, who was sentenced to life for the rape and murder of an IT employee in Bengaluru, will not be entitled to remission unless he has served a minimum of 30 years sentence.  The convict was a cab driver, who raped and murdered the woman while taking her home from her office in the middle of the night.

The trial court had directed that the appellant should undergo imprisonment for the rest of his life. The contention of the appellant before the Supreme Court was that a Sessions Court cannot impose such a sentence for the rest of the life. A fixed term sentence without remission can be ordered only by a Constitutional Court while commuting death penalty, the appellant contended.

Supreme Court's analysis

The Court noted that as per settled position of law,  when an offender is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, the incarceration can continue till the end of the life of the accused. However, this is subject to the grant of remission under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The bench also took note of the judgment in Union of India vs V Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors which held that a modified sentence for a fixed term without remission can be awarded by the Constitutional Courts as an alternative to death penalty. 

However, the bench further observed that Sriharan judgment does not say that such a modified sentence can be imposed only in lieu of a death penalty.

"The majority view in the case of V. Sriharan cannot be construed to mean that such a power cannot be exercised by the Constitutional Courts unless the question is of commuting the death sentence", the bench observed referring to Paragraph 104 of the Sriharan judgment.  

"When a Constitutional Court finds that though a case is not falling in the category of ‘rarest of the rare’ case, considering the gravity and nature of the offence and all other relevant factors, it can always impose a fixed-­term sentence so that the benefit of statutory remission, etc. is not available to the accused"

Factual analysis

The Court observed that the facts of the case will "shock the conscience of any Court". The life of the victim, a married woman and happily working in a prominent company, was cut short in this brutal manner.

The bench observed that the issue was of safety and security of women working tech jobs in IT hubs where late hours are common.

"In many leading cities, IT hubs have been established. In fact, Bengaluru is known as the Silicon Valley of India. Some of these companies have customers abroad and that is why the company staff members work at night. A large number of staff members in such companies are women."

The convict pleaded that he was only 22 years old at the time of the offence and had no criminal antecedents. However, the Court was firm that he deserved no leniency.

"That the accused has no antecedents, is no consideration by itself for deciding whether the accused will fall in the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases. It all depends on several factors. The Court, while considering the possibility of reformation of the accused, must note that showing undue leniency in such a brutal case will adversely affect the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system. The Court must consider the rights of the victim as well," the bench held.

 The Court said that this was a case where it must exercise its powers to impose a special modified punishment by prescribing life sentence for minimum of thirty years before any consideration for remission.

"This is one case where a Constitutional Court must exercise the power of imposing a special category of modified punishment ... we are of the opinion that this is a case where a fixed ­term sentence for a period of thirty years must be imposed," the bench concluded.

The Court allowed the appeal in part by modifying the trial court's sentece.

"We modify the order of sentence of the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. We direct that the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for life. We also direct that the appellant shall be released only after he completes thirty years of actual sentence", the bench ordered.

Case Title : Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy vs State of Karnataka

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Constitutional Courts can impose fixed term sentence even in cases where death penalty was not proposed- "Even in a case where capital punishment is not imposed or is not proposed, the Constitutional Courts can always exercise the power of imposing a modified or fixed­ term sentence by directing that a life sentence, as contemplated by “secondly” in Section 53 of the IPC, shall be of a fixed period of more than fourteen years, for example, of twenty years, thirty years and so on - Para 13

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 53-The majority view in the case of Union of India vs V Sriharan alias Murugan & OrsV. Sriharan 2016 (7) SCC 1 cannot be construed to mean that power to impose fixed term sentence. cannot be exercised by the Constitutional Courts unless the question is of commuting the death sentence-When a Constitutional Court finds that though a case is not falling in the category of ‘rarest of the rare’ case, considering the gravity and nature of the offence and all other relevant factors, it can always impose a fixed-­term sentence so that the benefit of statutory remission, etc. is not available to the accused- Para 12

Indian Penal Code - That the accused has no antecedents, is no consideration by itself for deciding whether the accused will fall in the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases. It all depends on several factors. The Court, while considering the possibility of reformation of the accused, must note that showing undue leniency in such a brutal case will adversely affect the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system. The Court must consider the rights of the victim as well -Para 15

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment