Case Note & Summary
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the rape of his own 9-year-old daughter. The trial court, by judgment dated 18.02.2013 in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2013, held him guilty under Sections 376, 377 and 506 IPC. On 23.02.2013, he was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 376 IPC with a fine of ₹25,000; life imprisonment under Section 377 IPC with a fine of ₹25,000; and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 506 IPC with a fine of ₹10,000. The trial court additionally directed that the appellant should not be given any clemency by the State before he spent at least 20 years in jail. The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence on 01.09.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2014. The appellant appealed by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court issued notice only on the question of sentence. The Court noted that the scope of the appeal was restricted to sentence. It examined the provisions of Section 376(2)(f) IPC (as it stood before the 2013 amendment) and Section 377 IPC, under which life imprisonment was imposed. The Court referred to the principle in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra that imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the whole of the convict's natural life, subject to remission powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution and Section 432 CrPC. The Court held that the trial court's rider fixing a minimum term of 20 years before clemency could be considered was beyond its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court modified the sentence by setting aside the direction that the appellant should not be given clemency before 20 years, while maintaining the life imprisonment sentences under Sections 376 and 377 IPC and the sentence under Section 506 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Life Imprisonment - Minimum Term - Section 376(2)(f), 377, 53, 45 IPC; Section 432 CrPC; Articles 72, 161 Constitution - The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 IPC for raping his 9-year-old daughter, with a rider that he should not be given clemency until he spent at least 20 years in jail. The Supreme Court held that a sentencing court cannot fix a minimum term of imprisonment for life as a condition for remission, as life imprisonment means imprisonment for the whole of the prisoner's natural life, subject only to the constitutional and statutory powers of remission. The rider was set aside. (Paras 6-8) B) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Life Imprisonment - Meaning - Section 53, 45 IPC; Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra - Imprisonment for life must be treated as imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convict's natural life, subject to remission powers under Articles 72, 161 of the Constitution and Section 432 CrPC. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could impose a direction that the appellant should not be given any clemency by the State before he spent at least 20 years in jail, as part of the sentence of life imprisonment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court modified the sentence by setting aside the direction that the appellant should not be given any clemency by the State before he spent at least 20 years in jail. The life imprisonment sentences under Sections 376 and 377 IPC and the sentence under Section 506 IPC were maintained.
Law Points
- Life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the prisoner's natural life
- subject to remission under Articles 72
- 161 of the Constitution and Section 432 CrPC
- A sentencing court cannot impose a minimum term of 20 years as a condition for clemency
- Section 376(2)(f) IPC provides for life imprisonment for rape of a child under 12 years
- Section 377 IPC provides for life imprisonment for carnal intercourse against the order of nature
