The Supreme Court has clarified that while imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life subject to remission, the High Court and the Supreme Court have the power to modify such sentence into a fixed term of imprisonment, even in cases not involving the death penalty, provided that the fixed term imposed is more than fourteen years. Such modification of a life sentence into a fixed term does not amount to enhancement of sentence, but is legally permissible as a reduction within the punishment framework.
Applying this principle, the Supreme Court may, in an appropriate case, maintain the conviction and yet alter the sentence of life imprisonment to the period already undergone where the period served exceeds the legally permissible minimum fixed term.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court on the aspect of conviction, and therefore maintained the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
The Bench however examined the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. V. Sriharan [(2016) 7 SCC 1] and noted that imprisonment for life under Section 53 read with Section 45 IPC means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the prisoner, subject to the constitutional and statutory powers of remission. It further noted from Sriharan ruling that the power to impose a modified punishment providing for a specific term of incarceration, as an alternative within the punishment framework, can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and not by inferior courts.
Reference was also made to the decision of the Shiva Kumar alias Shiva alias Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka [(2023) 9 SCC 817] to observe that the constitutional courts may, even in cases where capital punishment is neither imposed nor proposed, direct that a life sentence shall operate for a fixed term, provided such fixed term is not less than fourteen years in view of Section 433-A CrPC. In addition, relying on Birbal Choudhary alias Mukhiya Jee v. State of Bihar [(2018) 12 SCC 440], the Bench observed that modification of life imprisonment to a fixed term is not an enhancement of sentence; rather, it amounts to a reduction from imprisonment for life, which in law means imprisonment for the full span of natural life subject to remission.
The Bench then held that where a sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed, modifying that sentence into a fixed term is permissible, so long as the fixed term exceeds fourteen years of imprisonment. Proceeding on that basis, and also having regard to the fact that the incident was of 1998 and that the appellant was around 21 years old at the time, the Bench modified the sentence to the period already undergone, namely 23 years, 6 months and 3 days, and directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Briefly, the appellant, who was Accused No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 33/1998, challenged the judgment dated March 18, 2002 of the Gujarat High Court, by which the High Court had affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and default sentences. Originally, four accused were tried; however, while the appellant alone was convicted, the other three accused were acquitted.
The prosecution case was based on the evidence of three eye-witnesses. On the basis of their evidence, the Trial Court found that the appellant had inflicted knife blows on the torso and abdomen of the deceased, causing injuries that resulted in death. The Trial Court found that the contradictions in the witnesses’ statements related only to the other accused and not to the case against the appellant. It also found corroboration from the medical evidence and from the discovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant. These findings were affirmed by the High Court, which held the eye-witnesses to be reliable and corroborated by the discovery and the medical evidence.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant did not succeed in dislodging the concurrent findings on conviction. However, it was specifically urged on his behalf that, as on the date of hearing, he had already undergone about 23 years, 6 months and 3 days of imprisonment without remission, and that the sentence of life imprisonment ought to be converted to the period already undergone. The incident was of the year 1998 and that the appellant was about 21 years of age at that time.
