Sessions Court Cannot Sentence Accused To Life Imprisonment 'Till Death' To Bar Remission Under Section 432 CrPC; Only Constitutional Courts Can: Supreme Court

"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." Supreme Court, in an authoritative pronouncement delivered on September 18, 2026, held that a Sessions Court lacks the jurisdiction to qualify a sentence of life imprisonment to mean "till the death of the accused" so as to curtail the convict's right to seek remission.

A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih ruled that the power to carve out a special category of fixed-term imprisonment or life-long incarceration beyond the scope of remission is exclusively reserved for Constitutional Courts, noting that "the qualification of the 'life imprisonment' with 'till death of the accused' is not warranted in terms of the Section 302 of the IPC."

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Sessions Court for the murder of his wife and two children, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a specific rider that it shall operate until his natural death. The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed his criminal appeal and affirmed the conviction and qualified sentence. Aggrieved by the denial of his right to seek statutory and constitutional remission, the appellant approached the Supreme Court on the question of sentence.

The primary question before the court was whether a Sessions Court is competent under Section 302 IPC to direct that a sentence of life imprisonment shall extend until the natural death of the convict. The court was also called upon to determine whether an inferior trial court can lawfully curtail a convict’s statutory and constitutional rights to seek remission under Section 432 CrPC and Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India.

Section 302 IPC Does Not Permit Qualification Of Life Sentence By Trial Courts

The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme of Section 302 IPC and observed that the provision prescribes either death or imprisonment for life, alongside a fine. The bench noted that the penal statute does not qualify the sentence of life imprisonment in terms of years or duration, leaving no leeway for the Trial Court to add restrictive riders.

The bench observed that while the Sessions Court exercised its judicial discretion not to impose capital punishment, it overstepped its statutory boundaries by adding a qualification that the term would run until the convict's death. The judges clarified that such an addition directly infringes upon the statutory mechanics of sentencing.

Trial Court Orders Cannot Extinguish Constitutional And Statutory Remission Rights

The Court underscored that qualifying a life sentence to mean incarceration until natural death completely extinguishes the convict's remedies under the law. Such a rider deprives an accused of the opportunity to approach the executive for remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The bench further pointed out that such a restriction directly impacts the convict's remedies under the basic charter of the nation. The judges held that a Sessions Court order cannot disable an accused from seeking constitutional clemency before the President of India or the Governor of the State under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution.

"The appellant-accused now convict cannot have an opportunity to seek remission of his sentence which is permissible both under Article 72 as well as Article 161 of the Constitution of India as a constitutional remedy... such an appellant here would also not have the statutory right to seek remission by making an application under Section 432 read with relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."

Only High Courts And Supreme Court Can Carve Out Special Incarceration Categories

Analyzing the evolution of sentencing jurisprudence, the bench traced the doctrine of substituting the death penalty with a fixed term or whole-life sentence without remission. The Court noted that in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, a three-judge bench recognized the need for a special sentencing category to bridge the hiatus between 14 years in prison and capital punishment.

The bench reiterated that the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan settled this controversy by ruling that such judicial innovation is solely within the province of superior courts. The bench reiterated that inferior courts created under the procedural code cannot assume such inherent powers to bypass statutory remission frameworks.

"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. PC."

Subordinate Criminal Courts Cannot Override Provisions Of The Governing Procedural Code

Relying on the recent decisions in Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, the bench emphasized that while Constitutional Courts can specify a fixed period of twenty or thirty years without remission under Section 53 IPC, a Sessions Court cannot act contrary to the Code.

The Court drew strength from Kiran v. State of Karnataka, where it was held that a Sessions Court, being a creation of the CrPC, cannot curtail the operation of Section 428 or Sections 432 to 435 of the CrPC. The bench observed that the High Court, while affirming the trial court's order, committed a clear error of law by failing to examine the illegality of the sentence.

Sentence Modified To Twenty Years Actual Incarceration Without Remission

Taking into account the gravity of the offence involving the tragic murder of three family members, the bench found it appropriate to exercise its own constitutional jurisdiction to modify the sentence rather than awarding life imprisonment simpliciter.

The Supreme Court directed that the life sentence qualified by the Trial Court to mean "till the death of the accused" be replaced with a fixed term. The bench formally modified the sentence to life imprisonment, specifying that the convict shall undergo twenty years of actual imprisonment without any remission.

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court to the extent of the sentence imposed. This judgment firmly establishes that Trial Courts have no authority under Section 302 IPC to direct life imprisonment until natural death or to foreclose the statutory right to seek remission.

Date of Decision: 18 September 2026