Libertatem Magazine

Supreme Court Upholds Punishment of Life Imprisonment for Reminder of Natural Life

Contents of this Page

Excerpt

On the judgement dated 16 February 2021, the Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the Trial Court of awarding “Life Imprisonment” for the remainder of natural life. The judgement was passed by the bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi to a man for killing 2 minors.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the complainant was the mother of two minors and married to one Ajay Kumar. Those minors were like the gift from God to her and her husband from this wedding. Unfortunately, Ajay Kumar was addicted to liquor and, because of his alcohol addiction, died of health problems. 

After the incident, the Accused-Appellant was the person who was living on rent in the complainant’s neighbourhood, allegedly enticed the complainant to take her to Punjab along with her two minors. After this, the fateful incident took place in Punjab.

The Appellant used to argue with the Plaintiff and also beat the twins, according to the Prosecution, alleging that he did not like them because they were not his children. The Complainant went to the temple for prayers on March 18, 2013, leaving the children in the building. She found the kids struggling for survival when she returned. She lifted the alarm and took the two children to the hospital, where they were pronounced dead, with the help of the landlord and his nephew.

Initially, the Accused admitted that he had given poison to the children who died as a result. He later challenged the case. Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the Trial Court found him guilty of murder and sentenced him by a judgement dated July 1, 2013, with life imprisonment that would suggest the remainder of natural life and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The same was confirmed by the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Pleadings in the Court

The learned counsel pleaded that the Trial Court had awarded the Appellant-Accused with life imprisonment which would include within it the imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. This kind of punishment was not within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and could only be awarded by the High Court or the Supreme Court. It was further pleaded that the Supreme Court should interfere in the decision of the Trial Court for granting punishment of life imprisonment which would include punishment for the remainder of natural life.

On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent contended that Learned Trial Judge was empowered to impose the punishment of life imprisonment. It was further contended that this question was not raised in the appeal to the High Court and was being raised for the first time. Therefore, this Court should approve the sentence which had been imposed by the Trial Court.

Observation of the Court

The Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi observed that, if we take into consideration the legal principles, then the contention made by the learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant was right. The Court was of the view that the Trial Court could not award the punishment of life-imprisonment which should be imposed for the remainder of the natural life of the person. The Court said that “It is true that the punishment of remainder of natural life could not have been imposed by the learned trial Judge…” 

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court accepted the contentions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant. Then also, the Court upheld the judgement of the Trial Court and ruled that in the present case, after taking into consideration the murder of two minors under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment which would mean the remainder of life.

It said that “after looking into the entire case, we consider it appropriate to confirm the sentence of imprisonment for life to mean the remainder of natural life while upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC”.

Click here for the judgement.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

 

About the Author