Tweet
Remission no more easy for lifers
Giving full meaning to the punishment of life imprisonment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that life sentence was for entire life and for any State Government to grant remission it would require an opinion from the trial judge or high court judge which dealt with the case.
The decision has come as a blow to attempt by certain State Governments to grant wholesale remissions coinciding with festive occasions. This not only resulted in abuse of CrPC Section 432 granting State power to remit or suspend sentence, but even made a mockery of the criminal justice system and the administration of criminal justice delivery system by courts.
Courts of late, left with an option either to hang a person for murder (IPC Section 302) or sentence him to life, chose a middle path by adding a rider that the accused while serving life term would remain in jail for periods ranging from 25 to 40 years and in one case even for the remaining period of life, in order to overcome the abuse of remission power witnessed in many States.
The decision on Tuesday categorically held such decisions to be “unnecessary” as they amounted to “injunct” or stay the hands of the Government (executive) to exercise its remission powers. The Bench of Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Madan B Lokur held, “the grant of remissions is statutory. However, to prevent its arbitrary exercise, the legislature has built in some procedural and substantive checks in the statute. These need to be faithfully enforced.”
For instance, the court held, “Remission can be granted in the case of a definite term of sentence,” and not where the sentence is for life. Rejecting the “misconception” that life meant 14 or 20 years of imprisonment, Court held life to be entire life. “Remissions earned by or awarded to such a life convict are only notional.”
In this case, to reduce the period of incarceration, a specific order under Section 432 of CrPC will have to be passed by the appropriate Government after taking consent of the trial judge or high court judge who confirmed the sentence on a case to case basis and not a wholesale basis. “The reduced period cannot be less than 14 years as per Section 433A of CrPC,” Justice Lojur said, writing the judgment for the bench.
The court was even critical on the recent practice in deciding sentence for offences of murder, where recent decisions have become “judge-centric” depending on the discretion of the judge whether to grant death or life. Although a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the celebrated Bachan Singh had introduced “aggravating circumstances of crime” and “mitigating circumstances of criminal” to arrive at an appropriate conclusion, the bench felt that the balance had been disturbed as witnessed by several decisions in the recent past with much emphasis being given to aggravating factors rather than dwelling on the mitigating factors of the criminal which could have rendered him life sentence. This needed a fresh look, the Court held, without laying down the law as such.
Giving full meaning to the punishment of life imprisonment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that life sentence was for entire life and for any State Government to grant remission it would require an opinion from the trial judge or high court judge which dealt with the case.
The decision has come as a blow to attempt by certain State Governments to grant wholesale remissions coinciding with festive occasions. This not only resulted in abuse of CrPC Section 432 granting State power to remit or suspend sentence, but even made a mockery of the criminal justice system and the administration of criminal justice delivery system by courts.
Courts of late, left with an option either to hang a person for murder (IPC Section 302) or sentence him to life, chose a middle path by adding a rider that the accused while serving life term would remain in jail for periods ranging from 25 to 40 years and in one case even for the remaining period of life, in order to overcome the abuse of remission power witnessed in many States.
The decision on Tuesday categorically held such decisions to be “unnecessary” as they amounted to “injunct” or stay the hands of the Government (executive) to exercise its remission powers. The Bench of Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Madan B Lokur held, “the grant of remissions is statutory. However, to prevent its arbitrary exercise, the legislature has built in some procedural and substantive checks in the statute. These need to be faithfully enforced.”
For instance, the court held, “Remission can be granted in the case of a definite term of sentence,” and not where the sentence is for life. Rejecting the “misconception” that life meant 14 or 20 years of imprisonment, Court held life to be entire life. “Remissions earned by or awarded to such a life convict are only notional.”
In this case, to reduce the period of incarceration, a specific order under Section 432 of CrPC will have to be passed by the appropriate Government after taking consent of the trial judge or high court judge who confirmed the sentence on a case to case basis and not a wholesale basis. “The reduced period cannot be less than 14 years as per Section 433A of CrPC,” Justice Lojur said, writing the judgment for the bench.
The court was even critical on the recent practice in deciding sentence for offences of murder, where recent decisions have become “judge-centric” depending on the discretion of the judge whether to grant death or life. Although a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the celebrated Bachan Singh had introduced “aggravating circumstances of crime” and “mitigating circumstances of criminal” to arrive at an appropriate conclusion, the bench felt that the balance had been disturbed as witnessed by several decisions in the recent past with much emphasis being given to aggravating factors rather than dwelling on the mitigating factors of the criminal which could have rendered him life sentence. This needed a fresh look, the Court held, without laying down the law as such.
