Supreme Court on Life Imprisonment and Rigorous Imprisonment

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Today I will discuss the case of Md. Alfaz Ali v. The State of Assam, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6220 of 2018, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed whether imprisonment for life means rigorous imprisonment for life.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was convicted under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the offence of Murder and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Such conviction was challenged unsuccessfully by way of Appeal before the High Court. Thus, the matter traversed to the Supreme Court.

 

The moot question that was answered by the Supreme Court was whether sentence of imprisonment for life has to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life?

 

IMPORTANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

 

Before adverting any further, let us peruse S. 53A, S. 55, S.57 and S.60 of IPC. S. 53A provides that any reference to ‘transportation for life’ in any law would mean as rigorous imprisonment for life. Further, S. 55 of IPC provides power to the government to commute the sentence of imprisonment of life of an offender to a sentence that is less than fourteen (14) years. Next, S. 57 of IPC provides that while calculating fractions of terms of imprisonment, imprisonment for life shall be construed as imprisonment for twenty years. And lastly, S. 60 of IPC provides power to the Court to decide what part of an “imprisonment which may be of either description” shall be rigorous imprisonment and what part shall be simple imprisonment.

 

In order to understand the answer to this question, let us peruse the pertinent observations by the Supreme Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court cited the case of Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1961) 3 SCR 440, wherein it was observed that unless an imprisonment for life is commuted or remitted by an appropriate authority, it would mean that the offender is “bound in law to serve the life term in prison” and life imprisonment is one of indefinite duration.

 

Secondly, the Court cited the case of Sat Pal v. State of Haryana, (1992) 4 SCC 172, wherein it was observed that though life imprisonment has not been defined under any statute, yet necessary implication of S. 53A of IPC suggests that imprisonment for life is given for commission of heinous offences and therefore, it must mean rigorous imprisonment for life. S. 53A provides that ‘transportation for life’ means rigorous imprisonment for life.

 

Thirdly, the Court also cited the case of Mohd. Munna v. Union of India, (2005) 7 SCC 417, wherein it was held that by virtue of S. 57 of IPC, a life sentence cannot be treated as “one of not more than 20 years or that the convict is necessary entitled for remission.” S. 57 of IPC merely provides that while calculating fractions of terms of imprisonment, imprisonment for life shall be construed as imprisonment for twenty years. Thus, the emphasis is on “while calculating fractions”. S. 57 is applicable for calculation of fractions and not for the purposes of sentencing.

 

And lastly, the Court discussed the case of Naib Singh v. State of Punjab & Others, (1983) 2 SCC 454, wherein it was noted that a sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be regarded as one of not more than 14 years' rigorous imprisonment. This case also explained that Section 60 of IPC is applicable only to cases where the offence committed by an offender provides for “imprisonment which may be of either description” and therefore, “the sentence of imprisonment for life has to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life.”

 

HELD BY THE COURT

 

Thus, based on the afore-stated conspectus of case-laws, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the sentence of imprisonment for life has to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life” and the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Appellant was dismissed.

 

Those were the observations by the Court. So, what are my concluding remarks?

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

 

In the present case and the cases discussed here, all the Courts have done is to interpret Sections 53A, 55, 57 and 60 of IPC and other legal provisions. The intention of the legislature was gathered by harmoniously construing various legal provisions and nowhere the legislative intent reflects that an imprisonment for life would mean simple imprisonment. Thus, the law is well-settled in this regard. I also find the logic of the Court to be impeccable as imprisonment for life is given only in grave and heinous offences. It would be quite irrational if sentence of simple imprisonment is given for heinous offences and rigorous imprisonment for lesser offences.