Case Note & Summary
These writ petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging sentences of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life imposed upon the petitioners for offences under the Indian Penal Code. The lead petitioner, Ramasrey @ Fakkar, was convicted under Sections 364A, 302, and 201 IPC and initially sentenced to death by the Special Judge, Agra. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad modified the death sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. His special leave petition against the High Court’s order was dismissed as withdrawn on 3 August 2015. Another petitioner, Chander Kant Jha, was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to death; the High Court of Delhi modified his sentence to imprisonment for remainder of natural life without remission. The State’s appeal against that modification was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The bone of contention in all the petitions was that Section 302 IPC provides only two punishments—death or imprisonment for life—and does not contemplate imprisonment for remainder of natural life, and thus the imposition of such a sentence is unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. The matter was heard by a bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol. The judgment’s full reasoning and decision are not available in the provided extract.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Validity of Imprisonment for Remainder of Natural Life - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 201 - Petitioners challenged the modification of death sentences to imprisonment for remainder of natural life by High Courts on the ground that IPC only prescribes death or life imprisonment. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide the legality of such sentence. Held [Outcome not available in excerpt] (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether imprisonment for remainder of natural life is a permissible punishment under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether such sentence is unconstitutional
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided text
Law Points
- Imprisonment for remainder of natural life is not prescribed under Section 302 Indian Penal Code
- 1860 which only provides for death or imprisonment for life
- and imposition of such sentence is unconstitutional
Case Details
2026 LawText (SC) (07) 44
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 553 of 2023 with Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 42 of 2024, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 69 of 2025, and Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 198 of 2025
Ramasrey @ Fakkar and Others
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petitions under Article 32 challenging the validity of sentences of imprisonment for remainder of natural life imposed under the Indian Penal Code
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing or modification of their sentences of imprisonment for remainder of natural life, arguing that such sentence is not authorized by the Indian Penal Code
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the High Courts' modification of death sentences to imprisonment for remainder of natural life, contending that the Indian Penal Code only permits death or imprisonment for life, and that the imposed sentence is unconstitutional
Previous Decisions
Ramasrey @ Fakkar was convicted and sentenced to death by Special Judge, Agra; the Allahabad High Court modified the sentence to imprisonment for remainder of natural life; his Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 3 August 2015. Chander Kant Jha was convicted and sentenced to death; the Delhi High Court modified the sentence to imprisonment for remainder of natural life without remission; the State's appeal against this was dismissed by the Supreme Court on an unspecified date in 2015.
Issues
Whether imprisonment for remainder of natural life is a permissible punishment under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Whether the imposition of imprisonment for remainder of natural life is unconstitutional when Section 302 IPC only prescribes death or imprisonment for life
Submissions/Arguments
The Indian Penal Code envisages only two punishments under Section 302 IPC, i.e., death or imprisonment for life, and it does not provide for imprisonment for remainder of natural life, thereby making such imposition unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi
Not available from the provided text
Judgment Excerpts
These four writ petitions present same or similar questions of law but they arise in different facts and circumstances.
His bone of contention is that the IPC envisages only two punishments under Section 302 IPC i.e., death or imprisonment for life and it does not provide for imprisonment for remainder of natural life and as such the imposition of such a sentence is unconstitutional.
Procedural History
In Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 553 of 2023, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 364A, 302, and 201 IPC and sentenced to death by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Agra in Sessions Trial No. 647 of 2006. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad modified the sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. The petitioner’s Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 3 August 2015. In Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 42 of 2024 and connected matters, the petitioner Chander Kant Jha was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to death; the High Court of Delhi modified the sentence to imprisonment for remainder of natural life without remission. The State’s appeal against that modification was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11th of an unspecified month and year.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 364A, 302, 201
