Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2022 DIGILAW 604 (SC)

Omkar Swamy v. State of Karnataka

2022-04-18

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT

body2022
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The appeal arises from a judgement of the High Court of Karnataka dated 5 August 2020. The High Court dismissed an appeal against the judgement of the Fast Track Court, Bidar court convicting the appellant of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code 1860[1]. The trial court, inter alia, sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The factual background as set up by the prosecution is stated below. [1] IPC 3. It is alleged that the appellant trespassed into the house of one Shantamma, where he attempted to steal cash and gold from her mother Chandramma. When she resisted, the appellant attacked her on her head and face with a wooden club, which caused her to bleed from her injuries. The appellant then allegedly escaped with the gold and cash. The incident was witnessed by the complainant, the son of Chandramma, who tried to catch hold of the appellant while he was trying to escape. The appellant's escape was further seen by two more witnesses. Chandramma was taken to a hospital, where she was declared brought dead. Based on the written complaint, an FIR was registered against the appellant on the day of the incident. 4. The Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court IV, Bidar convicted the appellant of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 448 of the IPC. The appellant was ordered to undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year in respect of the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC. The trial Judge held that having regard to the age of the accused, who was 21 years old on the date of the incident, the sentence of death was not being imposed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court rejected the appeal by the impugned judgment and order dated 5 August 2020. 5 5. A sentence of life imprisonment can be remitted by the appropriate government in terms of the provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973[2]. Section 433-A[3] of CrPC prescribes the minimum term of imprisonment for a life sentence, which is 14 years. 5 5. A sentence of life imprisonment can be remitted by the appropriate government in terms of the provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973[2]. Section 433-A[3] of CrPC prescribes the minimum term of imprisonment for a life sentence, which is 14 years. The issue is whether the trial court could have validly directed that the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for the entirety of his life. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Union of India v Sriharan alias Murugan and Others, (2016) 7 SCC 1 , the law on the point is well settled. [2] CrPC [3] 433A. Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases Notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishment provided by laws or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment. The Court held that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entirety of the life of a prisoner unless it is reduced by remission under the CrPC or under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution. The Court further held that awarding a sentence of life imprisonment barring remission under Section 432 of the CrPC for a specified period beyond 14 years or for the rest of life is valid. The Court, however, clarified that it is only the High Court which derives the power under the IPC, to prescribe an alternate punishment to death penalty either for the entirety of the life of the convict or for a specified period of, say, more than 14 years, 20 years, 30 years or so on, depending upon the gravity of the crime committed and the exercise of judicial conscience befitting such offence found proved to have been committed. The Court affirmed the judgement of this Court in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 where it was observed that remissions in cases of life imprisonment are granted in an unsound manner, which makes a good case for carving out a special category of cases where the death penalty may be substituted by life imprisonment for a term in excess of 14 years and to put that category beyond the application of remission. The majority of the Constitution Bench held thus: 104. That apart, in most of such cases where death penalty or life imprisonment is the punishment imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the convict concerned will get an opportunity to get such verdict tested by filing further appeal by way of special leave to this Court. By way of abundant caution and as per the prescribed law of the Code and the criminal jurisprudence, we can assert that after the initial finding of guilt of such specified grave offences and the imposition of penalty either death or life imprisonment, when comes under the scrutiny of the Division Bench of the High Court, it is only the High Court which derives the power under the Penal Code, which prescribes the capital and alternate punishment, to alter the said punishment with one either for the entirety of the convicts life or for any specific period of more than 14 years, say 20, 30 or so on depending upon the gravity of the crime committed and the exercise of judicial conscience befitting such offence found proved to have been committed. 105. We, therefore, reiterate that the power derived from the Penal Code for any modified punishment within the punishment provided for in the Penal Code for such specified offences can only be exercised by the High Court and in the event of further appeal only by the Supreme Court and not by any other court in this country. To put it differently, the power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convicts life as an alternate to death penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior court. To put it differently, the power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convicts life as an alternate to death penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior court. (emphasis supplied) This Court has subsequently held that the trial court does not have the jurisdiction to impose life imprisonment for the remainder of the accused's life.[4] [4] Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. The State of Rajasthan, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s.) 7830/2021 (order dated 28.02.2022); and Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab, Crl. Appeal No 135 of 2021(non-reportable judgement dated 16.02.2021). 6. In view of the exposition of law by the Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the imposition of the sentence to the effect that the appellant shall suffer imprisonment for life till his death as his presence in the society is not necessary was beyond the remit of the trial judge. However, in view of the nature and gravity of the offence we are of the considered view that the term of imprisonment for life in the present case should not be less than a period of twenty-five years, without remission. In the circumstances, the part of the direction of the trial judge, that the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for life till his death, shall stand modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC which shall not be less than a term of 25 years without remission. 7. The appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.