Sessions Court Cannot Impose "Life Imprisonment Till Death" By Curtailing Statutory Remission Powers: Supreme Court

"The power of alternate sentencing to cover the hiatus between 14 years and death, cannot be applied by the Sessions Courts. 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." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated September 24, 2026, held that a Sessions Court lacks the legal competence to impose a "special category" sentence of life imprisonment that mandates a convict remain in prison for their entire natural life, as such a direction effectively curtails the statutory powers of remission and commutation vested in the appropriate Government.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that while a Trial Court is competent to award life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC, the power to stipulate a fixed term of incarceration beyond the ordinary remission regime is reserved exclusively for Constitutional Courts.

The appellants, Naval Kishore and Jyoti Kumar, were convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of three individuals, including two minor children, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Trial Court had sentenced them to life imprisonment with a specific, restrictive direction that they "remain in prison till rest of their life," a decision that was later affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellants challenged this specific restrictive direction before the Supreme Court, seeking a modification of the sentence while accepting the conviction.

The primary question before the court was whether a Trial Court is competent to issue a direction that a convict shall remain in prison for the remainder of their natural life, thereby excluding statutory remission powers under the CrPC. The court was also tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the appellants if the Trial Court’s restrictive direction was found to be legally unsustainable.

The bench emphasized that Section 302 of the IPC provides for death or imprisonment for life but does not contain an express provision defining life imprisonment as imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's natural life. The court noted that when the Parliament intends to exclude the remission regime, it uses specific and unambiguous language, as seen in the 2018 amendments to the IPC regarding certain aggravated sexual offences.

Legislative Function vs Judicial Power

The court underscored that prescribing punishments is fundamentally a legislative function, and judicial bodies must operate strictly within those parameters. Any attempt by a Sessions Court to supplement the prescribed punishment by imposing a "till death" condition interferes with the executive's statutory powers of remission under Sections 432 to 435 of the CrPC.

"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."

No Jurisdiction to Create Special Categories

The judgment reiterated the principles laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2) and Union of India v. V. Sriharan, confirming that the special category of sentencing designed to bridge the gap between 14 years and the death penalty is a jurisdiction reserved for the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Sessions Court's direction was held to be in direct conflict with the existing statutory scheme of the Code.

Balancing Proportionality and Reformation

While acknowledging the gravity of the premeditated murders, the court emphasized that sentencing must balance the nature of the crime with the individual circumstances of the accused. The bench considered the substantial incarceration already undergone by the appellants—exceeding 11 years—and their satisfactory conduct records provided by the prison authorities.

"The ends of justice would be adequately met by altering the sentence of the appellants awarded by the Trial Court, i.e. rigorous imprisonment for life and 'to remain in prison till rest of their life', to the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 years, without any statutory remission."

Finding that the Trial Court’s restrictive direction could not be sustained in law, the Supreme Court exercised its authority as a Constitutional Court to modify the sentence. The court set aside the "till death" mandate and substituted it with a fixed term of 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without the benefit of statutory remission. The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC remains undisturbed.

Date of Decision: 24 September 2026