Modifying Life Imprisonment & Imposing Fixed Sentence Is Permissible When Period Imposed Exceeds 14 Years Of Imprisonment: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment in a Criminal Appeal passed by the Gujarat High Court confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Trial Court) in a murder case.

The Division Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held, “The underlying ratio of the above quoted judgments is that when a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed, Section 53 read with Section 45 of the IPC would convey the meaning that it is till the natural life subject to the right of claiming remission. Hence, modifying a sentence of life imprisonment and imposing a fixed sentence is permissible under the interpretation placed in Sriharan (supra) and followed in Shiva Kumar (supra), as long as the period imposed is more than fourteen years of imprisonment.”

AOR Jaikriti S. Jadeja represented the Appellant while AOR Swati Ghildiyal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Trial Court had convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act (BP Act) and after sentencing him to imprisonment for life also imposed a fine of Rs.25,000. The Trial Court relied upon the evidence of three witnesses and found that the appellant dealt knife blows to the torso and abdomen of the deceased and caused him injuries resulting in his death. The Court also found corroboration in the medical evidence and on the aspect of the discovery of the knife at the behest of the appellant. The High Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and held that all the eyewitnesses were reliable and were corroborated by the discovery of the knife as well as by the medical evidence.

Arguments

The appellant submitted that this was a fit case where the sentence of life imprisonment ought to be converted to that of the period already undergone, i.e. about 23 years, 6 months and 3 days.

Reasoning

The Bench did not disturb the concurrent findings on the aspect of conviction. Dealing with the appellant’s submission, the Bench referred to the judgment in Birbal Choudhary alias Mukhiya Jee vs. State of Bihar (2018) where the High Court had modified the imprisonment for life imposed with regard to few of the convicts to 20 years. It was further held that since such modification was not an enhancement, the question of giving notice under Section 386 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code also did not arise.

Reference was also made to the judgment in Shiva Kumar alias Shiva alias Shivamurthy vs. State of Karnataka (2023) wherein it has been held that 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 IPC, shall be of a fixed period of more than fourteen years, for example, of twenty years, thirty years and so on.

The Bench thus held that modifying a sentence of life imprisonment and imposing a fixed sentence is permissible under the interpretation placed in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) and followed in Shiva Kumar (supra), as long as the period imposed is more than fourteen years of imprisonment.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench considered that the incident was of 1998 and the appellant was then about 21 years of age. Thus, partly allowing the appeal, the Bench maintained the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 135 of the BP Act but modified the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone i.e. 23 years, 6 months and 3 days.

Cause Title: Munna Moyuddin Shaikh v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 558)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Jaikriti S. Jadeja

Respondent: AOR Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate Adarsh Dubey

Click here to read/download Judgment