Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 409

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Sanjay Kumar, JJ.
Ravinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1214 of 2018)
Decided On : 25-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Simranjeet Singh Saluja, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Chandra Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Life sentence – A special category of sentence, instead of death, can be substituted by punishment of imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 14 years and that category can be put beyond application of remission – Power to impose a modified punishment within punishment provided for in Penal Code for such specified offences can only be exercised by High Court and in the event of further appeal, by Supreme Court, and not by any other Court in country.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 432 and 433 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 53 read with Section 45 – Constitution of India – Articles 72 and 161 – Life sentence – Sentence of imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be treated as imprisonment for whole of remaining period of convicted person’s natural life – Life sentence is nothing less than life-long imprisonment and would last until the last breath – However, in actual practice, sentence of life imprisonment works out only to a term of 14 years, in terms of Section 433 Cr.P.C., and may prove to be grossly inadequate to gravity of offence for which convict had been so sentenced – Remission is allowed to life convicts in most mechanical manner without any sociological or psychiatric appraisal of convict and without proper assessment as to effect of an early release of a particular convict on society – A special category of sentence, instead of death, can be substituted by punishment of imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 14 years and that category can be put beyond application of remission – Power to impose a modified punishment within punishment provided for in Penal Code for such specified offences can only be exercised by High Court and in the event of further appeal, by Supreme Court, and not by any other Court in country. (Paras 7, 8 and 9)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 377 and 506 – Rape, unnatural offence and criminal intimidation of own daughter – Life sentence – In light of settled legal position, it was clearly not within domain of Additional Sessions Judge to impose a restriction that term of appellant’s life imprisonment should be for at least 20 years and that he should not be given any clemency till then – Such power could only be exercised by High Courts or by this Court – Mere affirmation of hollow exercise of a power that was not conferred, by Additional Sessions Judge does not qualify as an independent exercise by High Court and would not suffice in terms of legal requirement – Sentence imposed by Additional Sessions Judge was without legal basis – Appellant was held guilty of most heinous of offences, rape of his own little daughter – Trust and faith that a young girl would repose in her father and sanctity of very relationship were destroyed by his debauched and devastating acts – In such a situation, allowing him the freedom to seek liberal remissions, so as to cut short his life imprisonment, would be nothing short of a travesty of justice – Power to pass a modified sentence of life imprisonment would be available to High Courts and Supreme Court even in cases where law does not prescribe death sentence as one of punishments and limits maximum punishment to imprisonment for life with nothing further – Court would take recourse to expanded option primarily because life sentence of 14 years imprisonment may amount to no imprisonment at all in a given case – Cogent reasons have to be recorded for exercising such power on facts of a given case and such power must not be exercised casually or for mere asking – Ends of justice would be sufficiently served if life imprisonment of appellant is for a minimum of 20 years of actual incarceration before he can seek remissions under provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other enacted law. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 15 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Convicted and sentenced for rape of his own 9-year-old daughter, appellant is before this Court. By order of sentence dated 23.02.2013, appellant was imposed with imprisonment for life under Section 376 IPC and payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/-; imprisonment for life under Section 377 IPC and payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/-; and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 506 IPC along with payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Default in payment of fines entailed further periods of imprisonment. In addition thereto, Additional Sessions Judge directed that appellant should not be given any clemency by State before he spent at least 20 years in jail.
Findings of Court:
Judges who bear sword of justice should not hesitate to use that sword with utmost severity to the full and to the end, if gravity of the offence so demands.
Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. Convicted and sentenced for the dastardly and most depraved of offences – the rape of his own 9-year-old daughter, the appellant is before this Court.

2. By judgment dated 18.02.2013 in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, held the appellant guilty under Sections 376, 377 and 506 IPC. By order of sentence dated 23.02.2013, the appellant was imposed with imprisonment for life under Section 376 IPC and payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-; imprisonment for life under Section 377 IPC and payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-; and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 506 IPC along with payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. Default in payment of fines entailed further periods of imprisonment. In addition thereto, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that the appellant should not be given any clemency by the State before he spent at least 20 years in jail. In appeal, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction and sentence, vide judgment dated 01.09.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2014. Hence, this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.

3. By order dated 19.03.2018, this Court issued notice to the State only on the question of sentence.

4. Heard Mr. Sudhir Naagar, learned counsel for the appellant; and Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned senior counsel, appearing for the State.

5. As the scope of this appeal has been restricted to the sentence imposed upon the appellant, we need not dilate on or deal with the issues raised vis-à-vis the merits of his conviction for the offences under Sections 376, 377 and 506 IPC.

6. Section 376(2) IPC, prior to its amendment with retrospective effect from 03.02.2013 by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, consisted of clauses (a) to (g). Section 376(2)(f), as it stood then, provided that whoever commits rape on a woman when she is under 12 years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine. Section 377 IPC states that whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine. It was in exercise of power under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 IPC that the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, as the victim was merely 9 years of age and was also subjected to carnal intercourse against the order of nature. He, however, added the rider that the appellant should not be given clemency by the State until he spent at least 20 years in jail. In effect, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment of a minimum term of 20 years.

7. Imprisonment for life, in terms of Section 53 IPC read with Section 45 IPC, means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the prisoner, subject to the right to claim remission, etc., as provided under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution and under Section 432 Cr.P.C. In Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 600, this Court held that a sentence of imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be treated as imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life. In Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107, a Constitution Bench endorsed this view and affirmed that a life sentence is nothing less than life-long imprisonment and would last until the last breath. Again, in Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and others (2016) 7 SCC 1, another Constitution Bench reiterated that imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict.

8. However, in actual practice, one finds that a sentence of life imprisonment works out only to a term of 14 years, in terms of Section 433 Cr.P.C., and may p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document