Sessions Courts Cannot Curtail Statutory Remission Or Impose Life Sentence Till Natural Life; Such Power Vests Only In Constitutional Courts: Supreme Court

The Court observed that while life imprisonment ordinarily means imprisonment for the entirety of a person’s life, the power to restrict remission or impose alternate sentencing beyond statutory limits vests only in Constitutional Courts and not in Sessions Courts.

The Apex Court was hearing a criminal appeal arising from a judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which had affirmed the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, while upholding the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran examined whether the Trial Court was competent to impose a sentence of life imprisonment and observed: “The power of alternate sentencing to cover the hiatus between 14 years and death, cannot be applied by the Sessions Courts. Hence, the sentence of life imprisonment cannot be directed to be till the end of natural life, by the Sessions Court which direction would be in conflict with the provisions of the Cr. PC.”

Advocates Sangeeta Kumar and Sanchit Garga represented the appellants and respondents, respectively.

Background

The appellant was convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC in connection with the death of a woman who had sustained extensive burn injuries and later succumbed to them. The prosecution alleged that the offence was committed after the deceased resisted repeated sexual advances by the accused.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a specific direction that the sentence would extend till the end of his natural life, further denying the benefit of remission and set-off under Section 428 of the CrPC.

The High Court of Karnataka affirmed both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the sentencing direction, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, which issued a limited notice confined to the legality of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court first reaffirmed the settled position that a sentence of life imprisonment ordinarily means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s life, subject to remission and commutation as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure and Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution. It held that these statutory and constitutional powers cannot be curtailed by a Sessions Court, which itself is a creation of the CrPC.

The Bench examined the doctrine of “alternate sentencing” evolved by the Supreme Court in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, where the Court had devised a middle path between death penalty and life imprisonment subject to remission, in cases where a sentence of 14 years would be grossly disproportionate but the death penalty was not warranted.

The Court noted that in appropriate cases as a uniform policy, “punishment of imprisonment for life beyond any remission can be awarded, substituting the death penalty; not only by the Supreme Court but also by the High Courts”, however stating that “the power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission was conferred only on the Constitutional Courts and not on the Sessions Courts”.

Referring to Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan, a Constitution Bench decision, the Court observed that while the principle of imposing life imprisonment without remission was upheld, it was clearly restricted to exercise by the Supreme Court and High Courts. Importantly, the Court noted that even such directions could not override the constitutional powers of remission vested in the executive under Articles 72 and 161.

On the issue of set-off, the Court noted the appellant’s contention that the Trial Court had expressly denied him the benefit of set-off of the period of incarceration already undergone during investigation and trial. Examining Section 428 CrPC, the Court observed that the provision mandates that such a period of detention must be set off against the sentence imposed upon conviction. The direction of the Trial Court denying such set-off was therefore held to be contrary to the statute and was accordingly deleted.

The Court also distinguished several earlier decisions where special category sentences had been upheld, holding that the present case did not warrant such treatment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC was confirmed, and the directions imposing imprisonment till the end of natural life and denying statutory remission and set-off were set aside.

The Court held that the appellant would be entitled to set-off under Section 428 of the CrPC and could seek remission or commutation in accordance with the law and applicable government policy.

Cause Title: Kiran v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1453)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates Sangeeta Kumar, AOR, Vidushi Garg

Respondent: Advocates Sanchit Garga, AOR, Shashwat Jaiswal, Kunal Rana, Diksha Arora, Bhanu Pratap Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment