2026 Supreme(SC) 1178

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ.
Naval Kishore & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4546 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 18390 of 2026) [Diary No. 56431 of 2025]
Decided On : 24-09-2026

A Trial Court lacks the authority to impose a special category sentence directing life imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's natural life without remission; such sentencing power is reserved exclusively for Constitutional Courts (High Courts and the Supreme Court).

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 432 to 435 - Constitution of India - Articles 72 and 161 - Sentence of imprisonment for life - Power of Trial Court to direct imprisonment for the remainder of natural life - While imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the convict, such sentence is subject to statutory powers of remission and commutation - Trial Court not competent to impose a special category sentence that excludes or curtails statutory powers of remission and commutation vested in the appropriate Government - The power to impose a modified punishment providing for a specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convict's life as an alternative to death penalty can be exercised only by the Constitutional Courts, namely the High Court and the Supreme Court, and not by any inferior court. (Paras 15, 16, 18, 19)

(B) Legislative Intent - Interpretation of Section 302 IPC - Contrast with specific amendments in other penal provisions where imprisonment for life is expressly defined as imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life - Absence of such express language in Section 302 IPC indicates that the legislature did not intend to exclude the remission regime - It is impermissible for a Trial Court to read into Section 302 IPC a punishment that the legislature has expressly incorporated in other specific provisions. (Paras 22, 23)

(C) Sentencing - Principle of proportionality - Determination of appropriate sentence requires balancing the nature and gravity of the crime with the circumstances of the accused - Factors for determining compulsory imprisonment without remission include the number of victims, age and gender of victims, premeditated nature of the offence, and the role of the accused, balanced against the probability of reformation, socio-economic conditions, and conduct of the convict during incarceration. (Paras 27, 28, 29, 32)

Facts of the case:
Accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the premeditated murder of three persons, including two minor children. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for life and specifically directed them to remain in prison till the rest of their life. The High Court affirmed both the conviction and the sentence. The appellants challenged the legality of the direction to remain imprisoned for the remainder of their natural lives, citing the period of incarceration already undergone and their satisfactory conduct in prison.

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court was competent to impose the punishment of imprisonment for life but was not competent to impose a special category sentence directing the appellants to remain in prison for the rest of their lives, as such direction excludes statutory remission and commutation powers. However, given the brutality of the crime and the deaths of minor children, ordinary life imprisonment would be inadequate, while imprisonment for the remainder of natural life would be disproportionate considering the time already served and the conduct of the appellants.

Issues: Whether the Trial Court was competent to direct, while imposing the punishment of imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC, that the appellants shall remain in prison for the remainder of their lives, and if not, what appropriate sentence should be imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to create a special category of sentence—bridging the gap between ordinary life imprisonment (subject to remission) and the death penalty—is reserved exclusively for Constitutional Courts. A Trial Court's direction that a convict shall remain imprisoned for the remainder of their natural life conflicts with the statutory scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the State's power of remission.

Result: Appeal allowed in part. Conviction affirmed, but sentence modified to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 years without the benefit of statutory remission.