'Sessions Court Can't Impose Life Imprisonment Without Remission': Karnataka High Court Modifies Murder Convict's Sentence
The Karnataka High Court recently modified a sessions court order convicting a man for murder of a child and sentencing him to life imprisonment until his natural death, holding that sessions court have not been conferred with the power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission.
The appellant had challenged a trial court order convicting him for murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment "until his natural death".
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in its order referred to Supreme Court's decision in Kiran v/s State of Karnataka (2025) and said:
"The power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission was conferred only on the Constitutional Courts and not on the Sessions Courts. Having taken note of the principles laid down in the judgment, wherein question was also raised in paragraph No.8 and so also in paragraph No.13, a conclusion was arrived by the Apex Court, wherein it is categorically held that the Supreme Court as well as High Courts can impose life sentence beyond any remission can be awarded substituting the death penalty.
But powers of the Sessions Court not conferred and the same was only on the Constitutional Courts i.e., Supreme Court as well as High Court. Having perused this principle laid down in this judgment and also the judgment of the Trial Court, while sentencing the accused, the Trial Court imposed life imprisonment that he has to suffer sentence till his natural death. Hence, it is very clear that Section 428 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in view of specific sentence and no right accrues to the accused to seek for any remission when the imprisonment for life is imposed, till the remainder of life. Hence, the Session Court cannot prohibit the benefit of set off as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, with regard to sentence is concerned, it requires interference that, imprisonment for life till natural death is converted to imprisonment for life"
Thus while upholding the murder conviction, the bench modified the sentence of the convict to "imprisonment for life".
The prosecution had alleged that the accused who used to work in a Mutt (Hindu monastic institution), had killed the complainant's 3.5 year old son out of "hatred" for the mother, grandmother and great-grandmother of the deceased.
The mother in her witness statements had submitted that the accused was loitering in the Mutt, used to snatch the mobiles and had even committed theft of money belonging to the Mutt's Swamiji. It was submitted that the complainant used to scold the accused and hence he had "hatredness against" her.
Other witnesses had also said that the accused did not have a good reputation and and he used to snatch the belongings of the devotees and the Swamiji.
"Having considered the evidence of P.W.1(complainant/mother), P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.11 and P.W.15, it is very clear that accused was having hatreadness against the P.W.1 and P.W.2. The prosecution has proved the motive for committing the murder," the court said.
The court also observed from evidence that the accused had prepared for the offence–wherein he had purchased a "sleeping tablet 0.5 mg", adding that after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the court said that it had proved the preparation made by the accused.
"But in the case on hand, it has to be noted that all the circumstances goes against the accused i.e., motive for committing the murder and the same is spoken by PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, PW11 and PW15 and their evidence is consistent with regard to the motive is concerned. The preparation to commit the murder is also spoken by the witnesses for having purchased the tablet and recovery of the tablet and also he had purchased the tablet from the medical shop and these witnesses i.e., PW7 to PW9 have supported the case of prosecution for proving of preparation. The recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused is also proved by examining PW21 as well as PW3 and their evidence is consistent. The medical evidence with regard to the homicidal as well as the FSL report also consistent and scientific evidence also clearly discloses that recovery is made i.e., blood samples from the body of the deceased and the same was positive and the remaining tablets were also recovered at the instance of the accused by drawing the mahazar and mahazar witness also supports the case of prosecution. Having taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it discloses that though case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances against the accused is proved with regard to the motive, preparation, recovery of dead body and also the tablets at the instance of the accused," the bench said.
Taking note of the medical evidence and scientific evidence and observing that each chain link was established, the bench said that it does not find any ground to interfere with finding of the Trial Court with regard to invoking of Section 302 of IPC conviction.
The bench thus partly allowed the appeal.
Case title: RUDRESH @ RUDRAIAH v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.69/2018