LLM Notes: Life Imprisonment in Indian Law: Statutory Provisions and Landmark Judgments

 Introduction

Life imprisonment in India is a significant form of punishment under the criminal justice system, often imposed for heinous crimes such as murder, terrorism, and kidnapping. While it is considered less severe than the death penalty, life imprisonment entails prolonged incarceration, often for the convict's entire natural life. This article explores the statutory provisions governing life imprisonment in India and examines landmark judgments that have shaped its interpretation.

1. : This section categorizes punishments under the IPC, including "imprisonment for life." Life imprisonment is defined as incarceration until the convict's death unless commuted by the appropriate government.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Life imprisonment shall always be Rigorous Imprisonment

As limited notice was issued in both the SLPs, we heard arguments on the point of rigorous imprisonment while convicting a person Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in SLP (Crl.) No. 6220 of 2018, submitted that the issue is no more res integra as it is covered by a judgment of this Court in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. MANU/SC/0125/1983 : (1983) 2 SCC 454. {Para 6}

8. In Naib Singh (supra) the Petitioner was originally sentenced to death for committing an offence of murder Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Later, the death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life by the Government of Punjab. After having undergone sentence of 22 years, Naib Singh filed a Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging his continued detention. One of the points argued by the Petitioner relates to sentence of imprisonment for life not to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life. By taking into account the earlier judgments of this Court in Pandit Kishori Lal v. King Emperor MANU/PR/0017/1944 : AIR 1945 PC 64 and Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0156/1961 : 1961 3 SCR 440, this Court in Naib Singh's case held that the sentence of imprisonment for life has to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life. The law laid down by this Court in Naib Singh's was followed by this Court in three judgments Dilpesh Balchandra Panchal v. State of Gujarat, Sat Pal alias Sadhu v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0531/1992 : (1992) 4 SCC 172 and Mohd. Munna v. Union of India MANU/SC/0566/2005 : (2005) 7 SCC 417.

9. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court on the issues that arise for consideration in these SLPs, there is no need to re-examine the limited point for which notice was issued.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6220 and 7110 of 2018

Decided On: 14.09.2021

Md. Alfaz Ali Vs. The State of Assam

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.

Citation: 2021 INSC 480, MANU/SC/0640/2021, (2021) 19 SCC 751.

Print Page

Whether the court can impose punishment less than life imprisonment after convicting accused for murder?

  Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which though the High Court has maintained the conviction of the respondent - accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC, but the High Court has reduced the sentence to already undergone, i.e., seven years and ten months, we are of the firm view that the same is impermissible and unsustainable. The punishment for murder under Section 302 IPC shall be death or imprisonment for life and fine. Therefore, the minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC would be imprisonment for life and fine. There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Any punishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC. By the impugned judgment and order though the High Court has specifically maintained the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC, but the High Court has reduced the sentence to sentence already undergone which is less than imprisonment for life, which shall be contrary to Section 302 IPC and is unsustainable.{Para 5}

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing the sentence of the respondent – accused to the sentence already undergone while maintaining the conviction of the respondent – accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court imposing the life imprisonment is hereby restored.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

M.R. SHAH; J., KRISHNA MURARI; J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1356 OF 2022; 

The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Nandu @ Nandua

Author: M.R. SHAH, J.

Dated: SEPTEMBER 02, 2022

Print Page

Supreme court: Trial Court Cannot Direct Life Sentence Should Extend To Remainder Of Life Without Remission

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a limited submission before this Court which has been noticed by us in our order dated 06.10.2021, referred hereunder:-

“Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that while convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the Ld.Trial Judge has punished him with life imprisonment for the entire life span which according to the learned senior counsel is beyond jurisdiction of the Ld.Trial Judge and placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 2016 (7) SCC 1.

Issue notice, for this limited purpose.”

After we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and taking note of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2016 (7) SCC 1, the sentence of life imprisonment which shall be extended to remainder of life passed by the learned trial court by judgment dated 19.12.2013 and confirmed by the High Court on dismissal of appeal stands modified with the sentence for imprisonment for life.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7830/2021; 

NARENDRA SINGH @ MUKESH @ BHURA Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Coram: AJAY RASTOGI; ABHAY S. OKA, JJ. 

Dated: 28-02-2022

Print Page

Supreme Court: Sentence Of Life Imprisonment Means Rigorous Imprisonment For Life

This Court in Naib Singh’s case held that the sentence of imprisonment for life has to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life. The law laid down by this Court in Naib Singh’s was followed by this Court in three judgments Dilpesh Balchandra Panchal v. State of Gujarat, Sat Pal alias Sadhu v. State of Haryana5 and Mohd. Munna v. Union of India6.

9. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court on

the issues that arise for consideration in these SLPs, there is no

need to re-examine the limited point for which notice was issued.

 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6220 of 2018

MD. ALFAZ ALI Vs  THE STATE OF ASSAM

Dated: September 14, 2021.

Print Page

Whether Sentence Of Life Imprisonment Means Rigorous Imprisonment For Life?

 Notice was issued on 27.07.2018, restricted to the question

of propriety of specifying rigorous imprisonment while imposing

life sentence.

 This Court in Naib Singh’s case held that the sentence of imprisonment for life has to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life. The law laid down by this Court in Naib Singh’s was followed by this Court in three judgments Dilpesh Balchandra Panchal v. State of Gujarat, Sat Pal alias Sadhu v. State of Haryana5 and Mohd. Munna v. Union of India6.

9. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court on

the issues that arise for consideration in these SLPs, there is no

need to re-examine the limited point for which notice was issued.

 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6220 of 2018

MD. ALFAZ ALI Vs  THE STATE OF ASSAM

Dated: September 14, 2021.

Print Page

Whether life convicts are entitled to get benefit of set off U/S 428 CRPC of pre-conviction detention?

 Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been

considered by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Bhagirath & Another –Vs. Delhi Administration (1985 (2) SCC 580), wherein the following statement of law has been made.

“8. To say that a sentence of life imprisonment imposed

upon an accused is a sentence for the term of his life does

offence neither to grammar nor to the common

understanding of the word 'term'. To say otherwise offend

not only against the language of the statute but against the

spirit of the law, that is to say, the object with which the

law was passed. A large number of cases in which the

accused suffer long under trial detentions are cases

punishable with imprisonment for life. Usually' those who

are liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life are not

enlarged on bail. To deny the benefit of section 428 to them

is to withdraw the application of a benevolent provision

from a large majority of cases in which such benefit would

be needed and justified………..

13. We would like to add that we find it difficult to agree

 that the expressions

'imprisonment for life' and imprisonment for a term' are

used either in the Penal Code or in the Criminal Procedure

Code in contra-distinction with each other. 

14.4.Thus, in the light of the aforesaid pronouncements and taking note of the underlying object enshrined under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure, 1973, we have no hesitation to hold that 'set off ' is permissible even for a life convict.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

W .A.No .6 67 of 2020 & CMP No.9331 of 2020

& HCP No.959 of 2020

W.A.No.667 of 2020

The Home Secretary (Prison-IV) Vs  A.Palaniswamy @ Palaniappan

CORAM :

 MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

AND

 MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

Delivered on : 05.07.2021

Author: M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

Print Page

P& H HC: Trial court can not award life imprisonment with the rider that it shall continue for rest of his natural life or rule out remission

 The legal position with regard to the power of the trial Courts to award

sentences with riders has been made explicit in the Constitution Bench

judgment of the Supreme Court in V. Sriharan (supra) in paras 103 to 105,

in the following words:

“103. That apart, in most of such cases where death

penalty or life imprisonment is the punishment imposed

by the trial Court and confirmed by the Division Bench of

the High Court, the concerned convict will get an

opportunity to get such verdict tested by filing further

appeal by way of Special Leave to this Court. By way of

abundant caution and as per the prescribed law of the

Code and the criminal jurisprudence, we can assert that

after the initial finding of guilt of such specified grave

offences and the imposition of penalty either death or life

imprisonment when comes under the scrutiny of the

Division Bench of the High Court, it is only the High

Court which derives the power under the Penal Code,

which prescribes the capital and alternate

punishment, to alter the said punishment with one

either for the entirety of the convict's life or for any

specific period of more than 14 years, say 20, 30 or so

on depending upon the gravity of the crime committed

and the exercise of judicial conscience befitting such

offence found proved to have been committed.

104. 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.

11. Thus, after the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme

Court in V. Sriharan (supra), it is not open to a court inferior to the High

Court and Supreme Court, while awarding a sentence of life imprisonment

under the Indian Penal Code to further provide for any specific term of

incarceration, or till the end of a convict’s life, or to direct that there shall

be no remission, as an alternate to the death penalty. That power is

available only with the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Consequently,

the trial Court, in the instant case, while awarding the Petitioner the

sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life could not have added the riders

that it should be for the rest of her natural life or that she would not be

entitled to any remission.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP-5238-2020 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 19th August, 2020

SAVITRI Vs  STATE OF HARYANA 

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Author:  Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.

Print Page

Basic concept of fraction of life imprisonment

Section 57 in The Indian Penal Code

57. Fractions of terms of punishment.—In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, ⁵⁶ [imprisonment] for life shall be reck­oned as equivalent to ⁵⁶ [imprisonment] for twenty years.

Print Page

Whether S 4 of indentification of prisoners Act is applicable to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life?

Relevant would it be to further note that in relation to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, Section 4 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 would not be applicable because the said provision specifies a prerequisite: that the person concerned is accused of having committed an offence which is punishable with a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards i.e. the sentence must relate to imprisonment for a term and would thus exclude such offences where either capital punishment or imprisonment for life is the sentence contemplated.

Delhi High Court

(Before Acting Chief Justice, S.P. Garg and Pradeep Nandrajog, JJ.)

Sapan Haldar & Anr. v. State .

Crl.A. 804/2001

Decided on May 25, 2012

Citation: 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3078 : (2012) 191 DLT 225 (FB)

Print Page

Whether sentence imposed on accused undergoing life imprisonment shall run concurrently?

It is undisputed that on 6th February, 2010 when the judgment
is delivered in four cases in which the appellant is tried, the appellant was
undergoing life imprisonment as per the judgment delivered in Sessions Trial
No. 199 of 1998 and maintained by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of
2003. Considering the provisions of Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure  and the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case
of  Rambhau Pandurang Wankhade, I am of the view that the appellant is
entitled for the benefit of Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error by not giving
benefit of Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the appellant accused.
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 355  OF 2010

Mahendra S/o. Digamber Deshmukh,

  V
 State of Maharashtra, 

              CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
              DATED   : APRIL 05, 2016.
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)4748

Print Page

When it is not necessary for court to hear accused on the point of sentence?

(1) When the conviction is under Section 302, I.P.C. (with or without the aid of Section 34 or 149 or 120B of I.P.C.), if the Sessions Judge does not propose to impose death penalty on the convicted person, it is unnecessary to proceed to hear the accused on the question of sentence. Section 235 (2) of the Code will not be violated if the sentence of life imprisonment is awarded for that offence without hearing the accused on the question of sentence.

(2) In all other cases, the accused must be given sufficient opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence.

(3) The normal rule is that after pronouncing the verdict of guilty, the hearing should be made on the same day and the sentence shall also be pronounced on the same day.

(4) In cases where the Judge feels or if the accused demands more time for hearing on the question of sentence (especially when the Judge propose to impose death penalty), the proviso to Section 309 (2) is not a bar for affording such time.

(5) For any reason, the Court is inclined to adjourn the case after pronouncing the verdict of guilty in grave offences, the convicted person shall be committed to jail till the verdict on the sentence is pronounced. Further detention will depend upon the process of law.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Decided On: 10.05.2001

Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath vs. State of Assam
Coram: 

K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi and S.N. Phukan, JJ.

Citation;  AIR2001SC2231, 2001CriLJ2902, 2001(3)Crimes77(SC), (2001)5SCC714, 

Print Page