The Allahabad High Court in Phool Singh And Another v. State of U.P. clarified that the sentence of imprisonment of life is till the natural life of the accused which cannot be fixed in years by the High Court.
In the instant case, the Court upheld the life sentence of 5 murder convicts by the trial court in 1997. It was argued on their behalf that one of the convicts who has already spent 20-22 years in jail be released after commuting the sentence.
The Court, however, clarified that it is not permissible for the Court to fix the period of life sentence to certain years, in as much as, the legal position is that the period of life sentence is the natural life of a person.
The question before the court was of remission of sentence. The Court took into account Section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the Court to impose a sentence authorized by law.
For the purpose of the instant matter, the Court was concerned with Section 302 IPC, which authorizes the Court to either award life imprisonment or death. It becomes clear that the minimum sentence for offence of committing murder is life imprisonment and the maximum is death. In view of this, the Court noted that the Court cannot curtail the minimum sentence as authorized by the statute.
The High Court also referred to Gopal Vinayak Godse vs State of Maharastra and others[1]wherein the Apex Court had held that the term means the whole of the period of convict's natural life which is subject to the power of the appropriate government to grant remission under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with section 433-A.
The Court also referred to the case of Duryodhan Rout vs the State of Orissa[2], wherein it was held that a person sentenced to life imprisonment is bound to serve the remainder of his life in life imprisonment unless the sentence is commuted by the appropriate Government.
[1] AIR 1961 SC 600
[2] (2015) 2 SCC 783