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.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal arises from a judgement of the High Court of Karnataka dated 5 August 2020. The High Court dismissed an appeal against the judgement of the Fast Track Court, Bidar court convicting the appellant of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code 1860[1]. The trial court, inter alia, sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The factual background as set up by the prosecution is stated below.

[1] IPC

3. It is alleged that the appellant trespassed into the house of one Shantamma, where he attempted to steal cash and gold from her mother Chandramma. When she resisted, the appellant attacked her on her head and face with a wooden club, which caused her to bleed from her injuries. The appellant then allegedly escaped with the gold and cash. The incident was witnessed by the complainant, the son of Chandramma, who tried to catch hold of the appellant while he was trying to escape. The appellant's escape was further seen by two more witnesses. Chandramma was taken to a hospital, where she was declared brought dead. Based on the written complaint, an FIR was registered against the appellant on the day of the incident.

4. The Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court IV, Bidar convicted the appellant of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 448 of the IPC. The appellant was ordered to undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year in respect of the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC. The trial Judge held that having regard to the age of the accused, who was 21 years old on the date of the incident, the sentence of death was not being imposed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court rejected the appeal by the impugned judgment and order dated 5 August 2020. 5

5. A sentence of life imprisonment can be remitted by the appropriate government in terms of the provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973[2]. Section 433-A[3] of CrPC prescribes the minimum term of imprisonment for a life sentence, which is 14 years. The issue is whether the trial court could have validly directed that the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for the entirety of his life. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Union of India v Sriharan alias Murugan and Others, (2016) 7 SCC 1, the law on the point is well settled.

[2] CrPC

[3] 433A. Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases

Notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishment provided by laws or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.

The Court held that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entirety of the life of a prisoner unless it is reduced by remission under the CrPC or under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution. The Court further held that awarding a sentence of life imprisonment barring remission under Section 432 of the CrPC for a specified period beyond 14 years or for the rest of life is valid. The Court, however, clarified that it is only the High Court which derives the power under the IPC, to prescribe an alternate punishment to death penalty either for the entirety of the life of the convict or for a specified period of, say, more than 14 years, 20 years, 30 years or so on, depending upon the gravity of the crime committed and the exercise of judicial conscience befitting such offence found proved to have been committed. The Court affirmed the judgement of this Court in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 where it was observed