While setting the record straight yet again, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Ravdeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors in CRWP-3794-2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:127233 that was reserved on September 5, 2023 and then finally pronounced on September 29, 2023 has reiterated that an order of rigorous life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission can only be passed by the High Courts or the Supreme Court. It merits mentioning that the Chandigarh High Court while referring to the Supreme Court judgment in a recent and relevant case law titled Union of India vs V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others [2016(7) SCC 192] had minced just no words to concede that the Trial Court’s order sentencing the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment of life with no possibility of remission and for the remainder of her natural life was a mistake. No denying it.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Deepak Gupta sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
By way of this Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant her premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India as per policy of the State, as petitioner has already completed the requisite period of sentence for grant of premature release, having served more than 16.5 years of actual custody (now more than 17 years).”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that:
Admittedly, petitioner and one Manjeet Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC in a case arising out of FIR No. 321 dated 14.10.2005, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, vide judgment dated 28.03.2012 by the Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Vide separate order dated 30.03.2012 (Annexure P1), petitioner as well as co-convict were sentenced to ‘undergo imprisonment for life, which would extend to their full life’ and to pay fine of ₹ 50,000/-each with default sentence for committing the said offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-525-DB-2012 against the aforesaid conviction and sentence is pending before a Division Bench of this Court for adjudication.”

Most significantly, the Bench while citing the most relevant case law propounds in para 23 that:
In the case of V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others (supra), a Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, after taking note of the distinctive features in the two enactments i.e., Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, observed as under: -

“101. Once we steer clear of such distinctive features in the two enactments, one substantive and the other procedural, one will have no hurdle or difficulty in working out the different provisions in the two different enactments without doing any violence to one or the other. Having thus noted the above aspects on the punishment prescription in the Penal Code and the procedural prescription in the Code of Criminal Procedure, we can authoritatively state that the power derived by the Courts of law in the various specified provisions providing for imposition of capital punishments in the Penal Code such power can be appropriately exercised by the adjudicating Courts in the matter of ultimate imposition of punishments in such a way to ensure that the other procedural provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to grant of remission, commutation, suspension etc. on the prescribed authority, not speaking of similar powers under Articles 72 and 162 of the Constitution which are untouchable, cannot be held to be or can in any manner overlap the power already exercised by the Courts of justice.

102. In fact, while saying so we must also point out that such exercise of power in the imposition of death penalty or life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge will get the scrutiny by the Division Bench of the High Court mandatorily when the penalty is death and invariably even in respect of life imprisonment gets scrutinized by the Division Bench by virtue of the appeal remedy provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, our conclusion as stated above can be reinforced by stating that the punishment part of such specified offences are always examined at least once after the Sessions Court’s verdict by the High Court and that too by a Division Bench consisting of two Hon’ble Judges.

103. That apart, in most of such cases where death penalty or life imprisonment is the punishment imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the concerned convict will get an opportunity to get such verdict tested by filing further appeal by way of Special Leave to this Court. By way of abundant caution and as per the prescribed law of the Code and the criminal jurisprudence, we can assert that after the initial finding of guilt of such specified grave offences and the imposition of penalty either death or life imprisonment when comes under the scrutiny of the Division Bench of the High Court, it is only the High Court which derives the power under the Penal Code, which prescribes the capital and alternate punishment, to alter the said punishment with one either for the entirety of the convict’s life or for any specific period of more than 14 years, say 20, 30 or so on depending upon the gravity of the crime committed and the exercise of judicial conscience befitting such offence found proved to have been committed.

104. We, therefore, reiterate that, the power derived from the Penal Code for any modified punishment within the punishment provided for in the Penal Code for such specified offences can only be exercised by the High Court and in the event of further appeal only by the Supreme Court and not by any other Court in this country. To put it differently, 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.”

Equally significant is what is then further pointed out in para 25 postulating that:
This Court after referring to paragraphs 103 to 105 of V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others (supra), held as under:

“Thus, after the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in V. Sriharan (supra), it is not open to a court inferior to the High Court and Supreme Court, while awarding a sentence of life imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code to further provide for any specific term of incarceration, or till the end of a convict’s life, or to direct that there shall be no remission, as an alternate to the death penalty. That power is available only with the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the trial Court, in the instant case, while awarding the Petitioner the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life could not have added the riders that it should be for the rest of her natural life or that she would not be entitled to any remission.””

Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 27 that:
In view of the above said legal position enunciated by the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others (supra) and further by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Savitri (supra), there remains no doubt that order of the trial Court (Annexure P1) in sentencing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life, with a rider to extend to full life, is clearly in violation of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others (supra). Such a sentence can be passed either by this Court or by Hon’ble Supreme Court only.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 29 that:
Now, the question arises that if the Division Bench of this Court as Appellate Court, at the time of disposal of the appeal of the petitioner, finds that sentence of the petitioner to life imprisonment till natural life is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, but in the meantime, petitioner is released prematurely, then what will be the effect thereof. Conversely, if the petitioner is not released on account of pendency of the appeal and the Appellate Court ultimately imposes a sentence of undergoing life imprisonment but without any rider, then obviously the petitioner will have to undergo more such period in custody till the disposal of the appeal, despite the fact that petitioner has already undergone more than double the sentence as required under 2011 policy.”

On a pragmatic note, the Bench then further hastens to add in para 30 stipulating most precisely that:
In order to make a balance, this Court considers it appropriate to hold that order passed in this petition shall be subject to the final outcome of the Petitioner’s appeal. Meaning thereby, in case petitioner is released prematurely and on disposal of the appeal, the Appellate Court finds that petitioner was required to undergo imprisonment for life till her natural life, then the petitioner will have to surrender before the concerned authorities or as may be directed by the concerned Appellate Court.”

Further, the Bench directs in para 44 that:
Consequent to the entire discussion of the factual matrix and legal position as above and taking into account the fact that petitioner has already undergone more than double the actual sentence as well as the total sentence as minimum required under the 2011 policy, the present petition is hereby allowed. The respondent-authorities are hereby directed to consider the premature release case of the petitioner in light of its policy dated 08.08.2011 (Annexure P3) and the observations made in this order. It is further directed that till the decision is taken by the competent authority regarding premature release of the petitioner as per this order, she be released on interim bail on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the ld. CJM concerned.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes clarifying succinctly in para 45 that, “Despite repetition, it is clarified that this order is subject to the final outcome of the Petitioner’s appeal i.e., CRA-525-DB of 2012. In case, on disposal of the appeal, the Appellate Court finds that petitioner was required to undergo imprisonment for life till her natural life, then the petitioner will have to surrender before the concerned authorities or as may be directed by the concerned Appellate Court. Disposed of accordingly.”

All told, the upshot of the above discussion discernibly is that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has once again made it indubitably clear that an order of life conviction for the remainder of the natural life of convict without remission can only be passed by the High Courts or by the Supreme Court and definitely not by the Trial Courts. So it is definitely the bounden duty of all the Trial Court Judges to adhere strictly to what the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held so explicitly, elegantly and eloquently in this leading case! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh