KIRAN v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Scope of Life Imprisonment and Remission: Supreme Court Clarifies Powers of Sessions Court vs. Constitutional Courts Regarding Sentencing and Set-Off under Cr.P.C.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 1453
Decision Date: 18-12-2025
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India; Section 428, Cr.P.C.; Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India
- Facts: The accused was convicted for torching a widow and her five children to death after she refused his sexual advances. The trial court imposed a life sentence, specifying it to be for the remainder of his natural life and denying him the benefit of remission under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). Several witnesses, including relatives, turned hostile during the trial. However, the deceased's dying declaration implicated the accused.
- Procedural Posture: The case reached the Supreme Court of India via a Special Leave Petition challenging the trial court's order regarding the life sentence and denial of remission. The Supreme Court initially issued a limited notice focusing on the correctness of the trial court's imposition of life imprisonment without remission.
- Issue: Was the Sessions Court competent to impose a life sentence specifying it to be for the remainder of the convict's natural life and to prohibit the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Cr.PC?
- Holding: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and permitting set-off under Section 428 of the Cr.PC. The Court held that the Sessions Court cannot curtail the power of remission or commutation conferred on the State.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that while life imprisonment generally means imprisonment for the rest of one's life, it is subject to remission and commutation as provided under the Cr.PC and Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India. The Sessions Court, being a creation of the Cr.PC, cannot curtail the provisions available within the Code. The power to grant remission and commutation lies with the State government and cannot be interfered with by the Sessions Court. The Court also referred to previous judgments, including Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, to emphasize that the power to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life without remission is generally conferred only on the Constitutional Courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) and not on the Sessions Courts. The Court clarified that the statutory provision of Section 428 Cr.PC mandates that the period of detention undergone by an accused during investigation, inquiry or trial must be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on them.
🔒 For Members Only