Trial Courts Cannot Award The Sentence Of Life Imprisonment Till Last Breath: Karnataka HC
🔹 Background and Legal Context
In India, life imprisonment under Section 302 (murder) or Section 304 (culpable homicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is one of the gravest punishments. Traditionally, a sentence of “life imprisonment” meant imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life (i.e., till the last breath).
However, over time, courts and legal scholars have debated the nature, scope, and purpose of life imprisonment, with many advocating that life imprisonment should not be a literal “life sentence” but rather have a definite term or be subject to remission after a certain period, often around 14-20 years.
🔹 Karnataka High Court’s Position
The Karnataka High Court, in recent judicial observations, has highlighted:
Trial Courts Should Not Directly Impose Life Sentence Till Death:
It is not within the trial court's purview to order life imprisonment literally for life till death.
The sentencing discretion must be exercised considering reformative justice principles.
Call for Abolition or Reform:
The court recognized that the sentence of life imprisonment as imprisonment till last breath should be reconsidered or abolished in favor of fixed-term sentences with scope for rehabilitation and release.
It aligns with global trends emphasizing human dignity, reformation, and social reintegration over perpetual incarceration.
🔹 Legal Reasoning Behind This Position
Reformative and Restorative Justice:
Sentencing must not only punish but also aim at reformation of the offender.
Human Rights Concerns:
Prolonged imprisonment till natural death violates fundamental rights to life with dignity (Article 21).
Discretion of Executive:
The executive (government) exercises the power of remission and parole; courts should not negate this by imposing literal life terms.
Judicial Precedents:
Supreme Court and High Courts have emphasized that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entire natural life but subject to remission or commutation as per law.
🔹 Relevant Case Laws
1. Mohan v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 SC 1892
The Supreme Court explained that “life imprisonment” means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life but it is always subject to the power of the executive to remit the sentence.
Courts cannot order imprisonment without allowing the possibility of remission or parole.
2. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632
The Court held that the power of remission is an executive function, and courts cannot curtail this.
Imprisonment till last breath is not the usual course; remission and parole schemes are an integral part of sentencing.
3. Munjappan v. State of Kerala, (1996) 7 SCC 338
The Court reiterated that life imprisonment does not mean a sentence till the last breath.
Sentences must align with the principles of reformation and social reintegration.
4. Karnataka HC Observations (Various Judgments)
The High Court has remarked that trial courts should not impose “life imprisonment till death” in literal terms.
The courts must exercise sentencing discretion keeping in mind the sentencing policy, probation possibilities, and remission provisions.
🔹 International Perspective
Many countries have moved away from literal life sentences without possibility of parole, emphasizing:
Fixed terms for serious offenses
Conditional release
Rehabilitation and reintegration
🔹 Why Abolish or Reform Life Imprisonment?
Avoiding perpetual punishment without hope, which can lead to despair and social exclusion.
Promoting human dignity and respecting constitutional rights.
Encouraging reform and rehabilitation rather than mere incarceration.
Reducing prison overcrowding and improving correctional management.
🔹 Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Traditional View | Life imprisonment = till death |
| Karnataka HC’s Stand | Trial courts should not impose life till last breath literally |
| Judicial Trend | Life imprisonment is subject to remission and parole powers |
| Need for Reform | Emphasis on reformative justice and abolition of literal life sentences |
| Constitutional Aspect | Right to life with dignity (Article 21) |
🔹 Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court has clearly indicated that trial courts must avoid imposing life imprisonment literally for the remainder of the convict’s natural life. Instead, sentencing should reflect the modern principles of criminal justice, including the possibility of rehabilitation and release.
There is a growing consensus—both judicially and legislatively—that life imprisonment as a literal sentence till last breath must be re-examined or abolished, promoting a more humane and just penal system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments