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.
No comments:
Post a Comment