Saturday, 1 February 2025

Supreme Court: The power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convict's life as an alternate to death penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

 This Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,

possesses the authority to scrutinize not only the

conviction of an accused but also the

appropriateness of the sentence imposed. As

articulated in the principles laid down in Swamy

Shraddananda 1, the power to impose or modify a

sentence within the prescribed framework of the

Penal Code is exclusively vested in the High Court

and this Court. The alternate punishment for

offences punishable by death, such as imprisonment

for a specific term exceeding 14 years or until the

natural life of the convict, remains within the judicial

conscience of this Court and the High Court. This

ensures that the gravity of the offence, the mitigating

and aggravating circumstances, and the possibility of

reformation are thoroughly assessed before

irrevocable sentences such as capital punishment

are affirmed. Therefore, the commutation of a death

sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of the

convict’s natural life, as an alternative to death, is

well within the judicial prerogative of this Court and

adheres to the constitutional mandate of ensuring

justice. 

105. We, therefore, reiterate that the power

derived from the Penal Code for any modified

punishment within the punishment provided for

in the Penal Code for such specified offences can

only be exercised by the High Court and in the

event of further appeal only by the Supreme

Court and not by any other court in this

country. To put it differently, the power to

impose a modified punishment providing for any

specific term of incarceration or till the end of

the convict's life as an alternate to death

penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court

and the Supreme Court and not by any other

inferior court.

 106. Viewed in that respect, we state that the

ratio laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2)

[Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of

Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 : (2009) 3 SCC

(Cri) 113] that a special category of sentence;

instead of death; for a term exceeding 14 years

and put that category beyond application of

remission is well founded and we answer the

said question in the affirmative. We are,

therefore, not in agreement with the opinion

expressed by this Court in Sangeet v. State of

Haryana [Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2

SCC 452 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 611] that the

deprival of remission power of the appropriate

Government by awarding sentences of 20 or 25

years or without any remission as not

permissible is not in consonance with the law

and we specifically overrule the same.”

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2220-2221 OF 2022

DEEN DAYAL TIWARI  Vs STATE OF

UTTAR PRADESH 

Citation: 2025 INSC 111.

Dated: JANUARY 16, 2025.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment