By Adv. Aashit A. Kankariya
INTERPRETATION OF CONVICTION FOR LIFE IMPRISONMENT
1. We live in a society whereby the rule of law is of utmost importance and that therefore nobody is above the realm of law. Such a principal is very effective and helps us live peacefully wherein persons unfit to live in society are sent for reformative rehabilitation in Prisons so that there can be transformation of such individuals and give them the ability to live in society. As we are aware that the duration of such rehabilitation programmes considerably varies upon each individual and the crime/s that he/she has committed.
2. One may choose to call such term as Punishments and not rehabilitation, however, there are several theories to disprove the same. In the opinion of the author, based upon the jurisprudence, it shall always be a Rehabilitation.
However, at umpteen times we come across conviction for Death or Life Imprisonment. Such sentences are generally given for heinous crimes whereby sentences in the form of Capital Punishment are implemented for individuals who have little to no hope of rehabilitating.
3. A very interesting question arises from such a conviction regarding the sentence of life imprisonment. A layman who rightly assume that such a sentence needs no interpretation and it clearly means that imprisonment till the natural course of life.
4. The appropriate Government is empowered to commute or change the sentence given to an individual by the judiciary in cases of life
imprisonment or death u/s 54 & 55 IPC. However, such change/reduction in cases of life imprisonment cannot be lowered than 14 years i.e one has to mandatorily serve the sentence of 14 years incase of life imprisonment irrespective of the opinion of the Appropriate Government. It may also be noted that a convict cannot claim such as a matter of right and it is solely the discretion of the Appropriate Government to exercise its right.
5. In the case of Vikas Yadav v/s State of UP, (2016) 9 SCC 541, the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically held that if the court specifically mentions the period of imprisonment, then section 55 IPC would not be applicable here.
Example- ‘A’ convicted of murder has been sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment. Here the Appropriate Government is not empowered to commute the sentence and ‘A’ would have to mandatorily serve such period.
6. In the case of Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra, 1961 AIR 600, the Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of 5 bench held that life imprisonment is life imprisonment and nothing else and therefore a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is obliged to spend the rest of his life in prison. But it has not been denied that such a sentence could be commuted or waived by the competent authority, in this logic it was confirmed by a chamber of three judges of the Supreme Court that the Criminal Code and the Rules of Procedure clearly distinguish between life and prison sentences.
7. In Subhash Chander v/s Krishnan lal & Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 458, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court held that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the whole of the
remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life unless the appropriate Government chooses to exercise its discretion to remit either the whole or a part of the sentence. Similar was the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Bhagwan v/s State of Rajasthan, (2001) 6 SCC 296.
8. As per Section 31 CrPC, if there is consecutive sentencing for several offences arising from a single trial, 31(2) CrPC limits the sentencing total to 14 years. In the case of Duryodhan Raut v/s State of Orissa, Cr.(A) 2277-2278 of 2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the sentence of imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the life of the prisoner. The Court further held that u/s 31 of the Cr.P.C. would not permit consecutive running of life sentence and the term sentence since the aggregate punishment of the petitioner would go beyond the outer limit of 14 years stipulated in the proviso to section 31(2) of the Cr.P.C.
9. Thus, the law is amply clear that Life means remainder of natural life and that the proviso u/s 31(2) CrPC of maximum 14 years cannot be claimed by a convict nor is the convict entitled as a matter of right for remission of his sentence u/s 54 & 55 IPC.
-Adv. Aashit A. Kankariya
