Life Conviction For Remainder Of Natural Life Without Remission Can Only Be Passed By HCs Or SC And Not By Trial Court: P&H High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court 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.
The Court disposed of the Petition and noted that per the Punjab Premature Release of Life Convicts Policy, 2011 (Policy, 2011), a female convict must serve a minimum of 8 years in actual imprisonment and 12 years in total imprisonment with remissions before being eligible for pre-mature release. However, the Court observed that the Petitioner served more than 17 years in actual custody and 22 years, including remissions, exceeding the minimum prescribed release period.
“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”, Justice Deepak Gupta observed.
Senior Advocate Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia appeared for the Petitioner, and Additional Advocate General P.S. Pandher appeared for the Respondent.
The Petitioner and a co-accused were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Through a second order, the Petitioner and the co-accused were sentenced to life imprisonment for the extent of natural life. The Petitioner contended that he had undergone more than double the requisite actual custody period for premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution, per the policies for premature release framed by the State of Punjab. The Petitioner made representation to various authorities, but her case was not considered because she was a life convict.
The Court acknowledged uncertainty regarding whether a Single Bench or a Division Bench can hear the Petition. To clarify the matter, the Court sent a note to the Registry. The Registry responded by informing the Court that, according to the roster, no Division Bench has been designated to hear cases related to pre-mature release. Therefore, the Registry listed pre-mature release cases before Single Benches, regardless of whether an appeal or revision is pending before a Division or Single Bench due to the policy matters of the government.
The Court noted, “Whether pendency of appeal against conviction is a bar to consider case for premature release”.
The Bench placed reliance on the case of Neki Nalwa v State of Punjab and others [2017 (5) RCR (Crl) 261] and reiterated that the Petitioner's request for early release cannot be denied solely because the Petitioner’s appeal in front of the Division Bench of the Court.
“whether the trial Court could have passed such a sentence; and whether the authorities would be precluded from considering any such application for release on parole till the appeal is decided”, the Bench ascertained.
The Court, while referring to the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Union of India v V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others [2016 (7) SCC 192], observed 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.
In addition, the Court noted that if the Petitioner is not released due to the ongoing appeal and the Appellate Court ultimately imposes a sentence of life imprisonment without any conditions, and then the Petitioner will have to remain in custody until the appeal is resolved, even though they have already served more than twice the required sentence under the Policy, 2011.
The Bench noted that the jail offence occurred more than nine years ago, in February 2014. The convict has already been convicted and punished for the offense, and an appeal against the conviction is pending. Therefore, the conviction and jail offence cannot be the reason to refuse the Petitioner's request for premature release.
To maintain balance, the Court held that the order of the case would be subject to the final decision of the Petitioner's appeal, that is, if the Petitioner is released early and the Appellate Court later decides that they must serve a life sentence, the Petitioner will have to surrender to the proper authorities or as directed by the Appellate Court.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Petition.
Cause Title: Ravdeep Kaur v State of Punjab & Ors.
