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 ₹25,000/-; imprisonment for life under Section 377 IPC and payment of fine of ₹25,000/-; and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 506 IPC along with payment of fine of ₹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 Vs. State of Maharashtra 1 , 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 Vs. Union of India2, 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 Vs. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and others 3, 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 AIR 1961 SC 600 (1981) 1 SCC 107 (2016) 7 SC