In Murder Cases, Sessions Courts Lack Power To Impose Life Imprisonment Without Remission: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran partly allowed a convict’s appeal in a murder case, holding that a Sessions Court cannot direct life imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life without remission, since such a punishment may be imposed only by Constitutional Courts. The case concerned the death of a woman who suffered burn injuries after she was allegedly set on fire inside her dwelling when she resisted sexual advances by the accused, a relative by marriage. While affirming the conviction, the Court modified the sentence to standard life imprisonment, deleted the bar on set-off for pre-conviction detention, and held that the convict may claim remission/commutation as per applicable policy.
The case arose from the death of a woman who sustained burn injuries after kerosene was poured on her and she was set ablaze inside her dwelling. The prosecution alleged that the accused, who was related to the deceased by marriage, committed the act after the deceased resisted his repeated sexual advances. The incident occurred at night, following which the victim was taken to a hospital, later shifted to another medical facility, and ultimately succumbed to her injuries after several days.
During the trial, certain close relatives of the deceased, including family members cited as eyewitnesses, did not support the prosecution version and were treated as hostile. However, other witnesses spoke about the immediate aftermath of the incident, the presence of the accused at the scene, and his departure thereafter. Medical evidence established that the victim had sustained extensive burn injuries and that the death was homicidal in nature.
The prosecution also relied upon multiple dying declarations recorded at different stages while the victim was undergoing treatment. These statements attributed the act to the accused and referred to the circumstances preceding the incident. The trial court convicted the accused for murder and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a direction that it would operate till the end of natural life, while also denying the benefit of set-off for the period of detention undergone during investigation and trial.
The appeal before the Supreme Court was confined to examining the legality of the sentence imposed, particularly the direction that life imprisonment would mean imprisonment till natural life and the denial of set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Supreme Court examined the scope of the notice issued in the appeal and noted that it was limited to the correctness of the sentence imposed by the trial court. The Bench nonetheless recorded that it had perused the evidence to satisfy itself regarding the conviction, particularly in light of hostile witnesses.
The Court observed that “the death was due to 60% burns caused, has been established by the medical evidence, making a clear case of homicide.” It further recorded that despite certain witnesses resiling from their earlier statements, the presence of the accused at the scene and his conduct immediately thereafter stood established through other testimony.
On the dying declarations, the Court noted that “one other compelling circumstance is the dying declaration made by the deceased,” and recorded that declarations were made both to police officials and before a Magistrate, with medical confirmation of the victim’s consciousness and coherence at the relevant time. The Bench stated that “in the totality of circumstances, as coming out from the case records, we are convinced that the conviction was entered into properly.”
Turning to the issue of sentencing, the Court stated that “the sentence of life imprisonment no doubt means the entire life, subject only to the remission and commutation provided under Cr. PC and also to Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India.” It further observed that a Sessions Court, being a creation of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “cannot curtail the provision under Section 428, Cr.PC, available in the Code which created it.”
Referring to precedent, the Bench recorded that the power to impose imprisonment for life without remission was vested only in constitutional courts. It observed that “the power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission was conferred only on the Constitutional Courts and not on the Sessions Courts.” The Court also noted that while alternative sentencing evolved to bridge the gap between a fourteen-year life term and the death penalty, “the power of alternate sentencing to cover the hiatus between 14 years and death, cannot be applied by the Sessions Courts.”
On the question of set-off, the Court recorded that Section 428 of the Code mandates that “the period of detention undergone by an accused during the investigation, inquiry or trial of a case… shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed.” It therefore observed that “the direction of the Sessions Court not to grant set-off under Section 428, Cr. PC will stand deleted, as there is no escape from it.”
The Supreme Court directed that “the appeal stands partly allowed, modifying the sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC. The direction of the Sessions Court not to grant set-off under Section 428, Cr. PC will stand deleted. The sentence under the other offences… would run concurrently”, and that “the accused would be entitled to avail of remission/commutation, in due course, but subject to the decision being taken by the Government as per its policy. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, AOR Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv.
Case Title: Kiran v. State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1453
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15786 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
