Trial Court Cannot Qualify Life Imprisonment Awarded By It To Remainder Of Natural Life: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The Delhi High Court has reiterated the position of law laid by the Apex Court that a Trial Court cannot qualify the imprisonment of life awarded by it to remainder of natural life. A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna observed thus while awarding life sentence (for remainder of life) to three men for gang rape and murder of a three year old minor child, observing that the same was done in a diabolic and brutal manner.The trial court had convicted the trio under sec. 376(2) and 302 of Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives.While upholding their conviction, the Bench observed that as per Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., 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.Hence, the High Court was of the view that the impugned order on sentence to the extent it awards sentence for imprisonment of the remainder of the life to the appellants herein for offences punishable under Sections 376(2) and 302/34 IPC cannot be sustained.The question before the High Court was thus whether High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction can direct that the life imprisonment awarded by trial court would be for the remainder of the life or a definite term.The Court observed that though the Trial Court could not have qualified the imprisonment of life awarded by it to the remainder of the natural life of the convicts, the High Court though setting aside the said order in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, can award the same sentence on consideration of the facts of the case. The Court reiterated the position laid down in the judgments of Supreme Court in Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. wherein it was held that 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.The said position was reiterated in Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab.Thus, it exercised its appellate jurisdiction by awarding life sentence under sec. 376(2) and 302 of Indian Penal Code. It observed that the imprisonment of life for the remainder of life would be an appropriate sentence in the facts of the case.Noting that death sentence was not awarded by the Trial Court, the Court observed that the sentence of life which would ordinarily be up to fourteen years after remissions would be highly inadequate, unjust and unfair to the victim."In the present case, the three appellants have been convicted for the gang rape and murder of a minor aged 3 years, thereby brutally mutilating her private parts and smothering her," the Court said.Hence, it said that imprisonment of life for the remainder of life to the appellants would be an appropriate sentence in the facts of the case.Thus, upholding the conviction of the appellants, the Court ordered thus:"Consequently, upholding the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) IPC, 302 IPC, 377 IPC and 201 IPC, and of appellant Jamahir for offence punishable under Section 363 IPC, though the order on sentence to the extent it directs the appellants to undergo imprisonment for the remainder of life as passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside for offences punishable under Sections 376(2) and 302 IPC, however, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and in view of diabolic and brutal manner in which rape with murder of a three year old child was committed, this Court deems it fit to award the same sentence i.e. remainder of the life for offences punishable under Sections 376(2) and 302 IPC. The sentence of simple imprisonment for 10 years for offence punishable under Section 377 IPC to all the appellants and imprisonment for 5 years to the appellant Jamahir for offence punishable under Section 363 IPC along with the fine imposed and the default sentences is upheld."The appeals were accordingly disposed of. Case Title: JAMAHIR ALIAS JAWAHAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHICitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 547 Click Here To Read Order

Trial Court Cannot Qualify Life Imprisonment Awarded By It To Remainder Of Natural Life: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags