Constitutional courts possess the authority to modify a sentence of life imprisonment into a fixed-term sentence, provided the duration is not less than fourteen years. Such a modification does not constitute an enhancement of sentence and is a legally valid exercise of appellate judicial power.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

4. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment and order dated 18.03.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 459/2001 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. By the said judgment and order, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, Camp at Chhotaudepur, Gujarat (for short, ‘Trial Court) in Sessions Case No.33/1998. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act (for short, ‘BP Act’) and after sentencing him to imprisonment for life also imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/-. Appropriate default sentences were also imposed.

5. Originally, four accused were set up for trial, and the appellant herein was A-2. While the appellant was convicted, the other three accused were acquitted.

6. The case of the prosecution is amply supported by three eye witnesses - PW-1 Arifhusain Inarbhai Mirza, PW-2 Ahmed Ali Mohmmed Ali Shaikh, and PW-5 Rashid Ali Kadar Ali Makrani. Relying on the evidence of PWs 1,2 and 5, the Trial Court found that the appellant dealt knife blows on the Torso and abdomen of the deceased and caused him injuries resulting in his death. The Trial Court found that the contradictions in the statement of witnesses were only with regard to the other accused (A-1, A-3 and A-4) and there was no contradiction with regard to the case against the appellant. The Court also found corroboration in the medical evidence and on the aspect of discovery of the knife at the behest of the appellant.

7. The High Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. The High Court held that all the eyewitnesses were reliable and were corroborated by the discovery of knife as well as by the medical evidence.

8. We have not been persuaded to disturb the concurrent findings on the aspect of conviction. Hence, we are not disturbing the conviction imposed on the appellant for the offences for which he has been convicted.

9. However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant as on today has already undergone without remission, a period of about 23 years, 6 months and 3 days imprisonment. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is eminently a fit case where the sentence of life imprisonment ought to be converted to that of the period already undergone, i.e. about 23 years, 6 months and 3 days.

10. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1 held as under: -

“Questions (i) and (ii)

(i) As to whether the imprisonment for life means till the end of convict's life with or without any scope for remission?

(ii) xxx xxx

xxx xxx

61. Having noted the abovereferred to two Constitution Bench decisions in Godse [Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 600 and Maru Ram [Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 which were consistently followed in the subsequent decisions in Sambha Ji Krishan Ji [Sambha Ji Krishan Ji v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 196, Ratan Singh [State of M.P. v. Ratan Singh, (1976) 3 SCC 470, Ranjit Singh [Ranjit Singh v. UT of Chandigarh, (1984) 1 SCC 31, Ashok Kumar [Ashok Kumar v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 498 and Subash Chander [Subash Chander v. Krishan Lal, (2001) 4 SCC 458. The first part of the first qu