Life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC retains the right to seek remission, even when clarified to a maximum of 20 years by the High Court.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat.

3. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of the High Court dated 03.05.2016.

4. The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Trial Court.

5. The appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court which has been dismissed vide the order impugned but with the clarification that life imprisonment would mean imprisonment of 20 years and the accused No. 1 may be released after completion of imprisonment of 20 years.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid clarification so offered by the High Court that life imprisonment would be for 20 years and that the accused No. 1 may be released after completion of imprisonment of 20 years, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the life imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court was with the implied right to apply for remission, if the Rules so permit. The said right cannot be taken away while clarifying the sentence.

8. The other submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that such a clarification amounts to making the punishment more stringent to the detriment of the appellant which could not have been done without putting the appellant to notice.

9. We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has simply convicted the appellant and had sentenced him to life imprisonment, which means for the remainder of his life. The High Court while clarifying the aforesaid order of sentence has observed that life imprisonment would mean imprisonment for 20 years meaning thereby, that the High Court has diluted the sentence by putting a cap to the life imprisonment to the maximum extent of 20 years. The High Court in so directing has further stated that accused No. 1 may be released after completion of 20 years of imprisonment which is a further clarification to the fact that the appellant would not suffer imprisonment after completion of 20 years which would be treated as life imprisonment. In effect, the second part of the clarificatory observations was superfluous and was not necessary.

10. The Trial Court or the High Court while sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment and putting the cap of 20 years to life imprisonment has not in any way abridged/curtailed the right of the appellant to apply for remission, if the law so permits. There is no specific direction by the High Court that the appellant shall in no case be released prior to completion of the stipulated period, which has been quantified to 20 years. The right of remission/ premature release is under the policy of the Government which confers an independent and distinct right upon the convict. The High Court appears to have no intention to take away the said right of the appellant while quantifying the life imprisonment inflicted upon him.

11. We are conscious that the High Court has power to quantify the life imprisonment.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the clarification given by the High Court in quantifying the life imprisonment keeps intact the right of the appellant to seek remission in accordance with the policy of the State Government in vogue or any other policy of the State Government or the Central Government for the premature release of the prisoners.

13. Thus, according to us, the life imprisonment of the appellant is for 20 years with the right to apply for remission, if the policy Rules so permit.

14. The present appeal is allowed to the above extent.

15. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.