302. Punishment for murder.— Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 302 IPC prescribes two punishments for the offence of murder, namely,
(i) death or
(ii) imprisonment for life, apart from fine.
However, significantly Section 302 IPC does not expressly provide that imprisonment for life shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of convict, unlike certain other provisions of the IPC which expressly provide for such a consequence.
It is well settled that, as per Section 53 read with Section 45 of the IPC, imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the convict. At the same time, such a sentence is subject to the statutory powers of remission and commutation vested in the appropriate Government under Sections 432 to 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the constitutional powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India.
Although life imprisonment denotes imprisonment for the remainder of the life of convict, the statutory powers of remission and commutation cannot be curtailed by a Sessions Court and thus, the power to impose a special category sentence of life imprisonment without remission belongs to the Constitutional Courts and not to the Sessions Court. This Court further held that the power to grant remission and commutation under Sections 432 to 435 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be curtailed by the Sessions Court and a direction by the Sessions Court that imprisonment for life shall continue till the end of the natural life of the convict is in conflict with the statutory scheme. Accordingly, in that case, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was modified to imprisonment for life simpliciter.
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. P.C. The power of remission or commutation conferred on the State cannot be taken away and the sentence as awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 is confirmed as imprisonment for life.
There is no doubt that the Trial Court was competent to impose the punishment of imprisonment for life upon the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, however, at the same time, the Trial Court was not competent to impose a special category sentence that the appellants “to remain in prison till rest of their life”, which in substance and effect, excludes the statutory power of remission or commutation.
The power to impose a special category of sentence, whereby a convict is required to undergo imprisonment for a specified period beyond the ordinary remission or commutation regime, is vested only in the Constitutional Courts.
Holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature and gravity of the offence, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the role attributable to the accused, the period of incarceration already undergone, the conduct of the convict while in custody and the prospects of rehabilitation of the convict.
The Trial Court was competent to impose the punishment of imprisonment for life upon the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, however, it was not competent to direct that the appellants shall “remain in prison till rest of their life.