Trial Court cannot direct sentence of life imprisonment for remainder of natural life: Supreme Court of India

The sole accused appellant faced trial for committing the dated 1st July 2013 and confirmed by the High Court on appeal preferred at his instance being dismissed by judgment impugned dated 13th December 2018 the appellant has preferred this appeal married with Ajay Kumar S o Sajjan Singh and from this wedlock she had two children namely Vijay Kumar @ Bittu aged 4 years because of intoxicants he died. The accused appellant was residing on rent in the neighbourhood of complainant Anju appellant used to quarrel with Anju and frequently beat the they were not his own and that some day he would kill both of them. About a month and half before the incident he had fractured the arm of Vijay @ Bittu deceased son of Anju. On the fateful day of 18th March 2013 at about 7.30 a.m. Anju went to the house and the accused appellant was present. When Anju complainant Anju that he had given poison to both the children The complainant Anju raised alarm and with the assistance of Jagdev Singh PW­2 the landlord and his nephew Kamaldeep Singh PW­3 both the children were taken to Civil Hospital Mandi police statement of the complainant Anju was recorded and FIR of which the children died within 15­20 minutes. However after Jagdev Singhhe moved an application dated 14 th May 2013 misled by Government counsel to make a wrong statement The prosecution examined number of witnesses including Anju PW­1 the complainant whose both children were murdered case of both the children was found to be Aluminium Phosphide recorded under Section 313 CrPC where he denied having Learned trial Judge finally held the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC and punished him with revisited the record in totality and confirmed the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge by judgment dated 13th December 2018 which is impugned before us in the instant At the motion stage when the matter came up before this Court on 20th February 2020 the plea which was raised by learned counsel for the appellant was that on the date of framing of charges i.e. 29th April 2013 the statement of material prosecution witnesses PW­1 and PW­2 was recorded without affording of Criminal Procedure 1973. After the notice was served counter in our Order dated 20th February 2020 has been explained in the appellant pleaded guilty however following the rule of recording the conviction and accordingly PW­1 and PW­2 were to the accused appellant to cross­examine the witnesses on 29th two witnesses the appellant pleaded to claim trial on 14th May 2013 and thereafter the evidence of other prosecution witnesses 10. After taking note of the statement of fact which has been in particular of which the reference has been made and with assistance of the learned counsel we have gone through the while convicting the accused appellant for offence under Section would mean a remainder of natural life which was not in the domain of the trial Court and this could have been exercised only learned counsel has placed reliance on para 105 and 106 of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India Vs V. Sriharan @ Murugan and Others 2016(7) SCC 1 which is “105. We therefore reiterate that the power derived from the Penal Code for any modified punishment within the to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific SCC 767 that a special category of sentence instead of death application of remission is well founded and we answer the said question in the affirmative. We are therefore not in agreement with the opinion expressed by this Court in Sangeet v. State of Haryana2 SCC 452 that the awarding sentences of 20 or 25 years or without any remission as not permissible is not in consonance with the 12. Taking assistance thereof learned counsel for the appellant submits that at least judgment of the trial Court in imposing punishment of life imprisonment to the remainder of natural life 13. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submits that Judge and since this question was not raised by the appellant exercise its power and approve the sentence which has been the respondent and after the accused has been held guilty for 15. On the legal principles the learned counsel for the appellant case in totality with motive of the crime that he was living in a a brutal manner by administering celphos to them has been life could not have been imposed by the learned trial Judge but after looking into the entire case we consider it appropriate to confirm the sentence of imprisonment for life to mean the remainder of natural life while upholding the conviction under 16. Consequently the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed 17. Pending application(s) if any stand disposed of

Summary: A trial court while sentencing an accused to life imprisonment cannot order that such imprisonment is for the remainder of his/her natural life; only High Courts and the Supreme Court have the power to direct the same. Supreme Court of India bench including Hon’ble Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Ajay Rastogi gave the judgment in the case of Gauri Shankar vs. State of Punjab [Criminal Appeal no. 135 of 2021] while stating the above-cited reasons. In the instant case, the appellant was accused of murdering two minor children of the complainant; for which he was being convicted for offences u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court which was later upheld by the High Court too. According to the facts of the present case, the complainant and her two children lived with the accused but were not related to each other. The accused-appellant was not happy living with the children and hence, used to beat them daily. One day, when the complainant was not home, the accused gave poison to both the kids, as a result of which they died. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under   Section 313 CrPC where he denied having committed the crime but did not lead any evidence in defence. Considering the facts, the Trial Court judge had held the appellant guilty for offence u/s 302 of IPC and punished him with imprisonment for life which would mean the remainder of natural life. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the learned counsel of the appellant argued that in both the proceedings before the Trial Court and the High Court that no reasonable opportunity for cross-examination was given to them u/s 230 CrPC. Relying on the judgments of Union of India Vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan and   Others 2016(7) SCC 1, the counsel had also argued that the Trial Court does not have the power to direct the life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life; only High Courts and Supreme Court can do that.