Direction to undergo Other Sentences after Life Sentence Illegal: SC

TEN POINTERS OF THE CASE

1.Background of the Case

This appeal challenges the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka. In nutshell, the appellant was awarded a life sentence on three counts and a sentence of 10 years each on five counts, out of which it was only the sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 5(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is to run being rigorous after the expiration of other sentences of imprisonments.

2.Issues raised

• Whether the court can direct the prisoner to undergo other Sentences after a life sentence?
• Whether the court can direct life sentence and term sentences to run consecutively (not raised in the petition but court answered this).

3. Principles of Justice

This Judgment has again set up a Principle in awarding Concurrent Sentences in case of Judgment passed by the Lower Court involving more than one Sentences for the same incident or Trial.

This Court upon a review of the case law on the subject held that Section 31 CrPC vested the court with the power to order in its discretion that the sentences awarded shall run concurrently in case of conviction of two or more offences.

• This Court declared that it was difficult to lay down a straightjacket rule for the exercise of such discretion by the courts.
• Whether a sentence should run concurrently or consecutively would depend upon the nature of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case.
• All that could be said was that the discretion has to be exercised along judicial lines and not mechanically.
• The Court observed that if two life sentences are imposed on a convict the court has to direct the same to run concurrently. That is because the sentence of imprisonment for life means imprisonment till the normal life of a convict.
• The humans like all other living beings have but one life to live

4. Case Laws

Presented by Mr Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Advocate

Muthuramalingam & Ors vs State Rep.By Insp.Of Police on [1 (2016) 8 SCC 313]

18. states that any direction that requires the offender to undergo imprisonment for life twice over would be anomalous and irrational for it will disregard the fact that humans like all other living beings have but one life to live.
19. states that whether the court can direct life sentence and term sentences to run consecutively?

Presented by  Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, learned Advocate for the State

O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala, (2015) 2 SCC 501 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 123

Para 25 states that the case awarded to the convict’s imprisonment for two years under Section 498-A IPC and seven years under Section 306 IPC and directed the same to run consecutively.

In this Judgement, two sections were mentioned to bring Justice even to the Accused (the Appellant). The first one is section 31 of Cr.PC, emphasizing section 31(1) of Cr.PC and the other one is section 71 of IPC. It is to indicate both the sections give discrete powers to the Court to award sentences prudently which may be Consecutive or Concurrent.

The cases cited by the Appellant Counsel and State Counsel were indicating sentences of Life Imprisonment combining or segregating with other sentences. 

5. Reasoning of Humanity

The Judges had mentioned that Life Imprisonment is mentioned in Sections 31 of Cr. PC. as Proviso to the Consecutive sentence (u/s 31, 2a & 2b).

The Judge applied his reasoning on basis of Humanity.

• Note: This section not only emphasized Life Imprisonment but also any term sentence as well to be considered as Concurrent Sentence. This means that Court even can decide to award a concurrent sentence than a consecutive one. Read section 31 (2b) CrPC, Section 31. The sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial.

(1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.

This Covers the discrete power of the Court to choose between Consecutive & Concurrent sentence

(2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being more than the punishment which it is competent to inflict on conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher Court:

Provided that:  

(a) in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period than fourteen years;

This covers imprisonment for life.

(b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence.

This covers any other Term imprisonment.

(3) For appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the consecutive sentences passed against him under this section shall be deemed to be a single sentence.

This Covers the appeal for a Single Sentence.

Nowhere in this section, Life Imprisonment is mentioned but covers the Court’s discrete powers to choose between the consecutive or concurrent sentence.

6. IPC: Section 71. Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences.

• Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it is so expressly provided.

[Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or

• where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence,
• the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences].

7. Offences of the Accused in different Law

This Court had heard Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Advocate in support of the appeal, and Mr Shubhranshu Padhi, learned Advocate for the State.

The followings were the sections applied from different statutes to the appellant. On these sections basis, Court using its discrete power to award the appellant the consecutive sentence.

1. Section 121 in The Indian Penal Code: Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India

punished with death, or [imprisonment for life] [and shall also be liable to fine]

2. Section 121A in The Indian Penal Code: Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section 121

punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years, [and shall also be liable to fine]

3. Section 122 in The Indian Penal Code: Collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against the Government of India.

[imprisonment for life] or imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years [and shall also be liable to fine].

4. Section 20 in The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: 20. Punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or organization

imprisonment for a term which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

5. Section 23(1) in The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967:  intent to aid any terrorist or a terrorist organization or a terrorist gang contravenes

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

6. Section 5(b) in The Explosive Substances Act, 1908: any special category explosive substance

rigorous imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term that may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

7. Section 25(1A) in Arms Act: possession or carries any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

8. Section 26(2) in Arms Act: contravention of any of the provisions of section5,6,7 or11

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years and also with a fine.

8. Orders Passed by the Lower Courts

The appellant was awarded imprisonment for life on three counts and a sentence of 10 years each on five counts, out of which it was only the sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 5(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, which was the subject matter of the last part of the directions in paragraph 9 of the order of sentence.

The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court was as under:

• Imprisonment for life under section 121 of IPC
• Simple imprisonment for ten years under section 121-A of IPC
• Simple imprisonment for ten years under Section 122 of IPC
• Rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 5(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908
• Simple Imprisonment for Ten years under Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959
• Simple imprisonment for ten years under Section 26(2) of Arms Act, 1959
• Undergo imprisonment for life under Section 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
• Undergo imprisonment for life under Section 23(1) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
• Part A: the rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years, the other sentences of imprisonments, which are simple in nature (Para 2,3,5 & 6) shall run concurrently.
• Part B: the rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years, shall commence at the expiration of other sentences (Para 1, 7 & 8 or in fine defaulter) of imprisonments.

9. The Judgment

Paragraph 9 (Part B) of the order of sentence contemplated commencement of the sentence awarded under paragraph 4 of the order of sentence, after the expiration of other sentences of imprisonment. It would, therefore, mean that the sentence in paragraph 4 would begin after the expiration of other sentences including a sentence for imprisonment for life awarded under three counts.

Mr Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Advocate, on nature and quantum of sentence is that the last part of paragraph 9 of the order of sentence of imprisonment is incorrect. He had referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Muthuramalingam v. State. This Court had held that the stipulation would be against the law laid down by this Court in Muthuramalingam, especially paragraph 35 of the decision as quoted above.

10. Final Verdict

The Court held that considering the fact situation,” in our view, the following sentence appearing in paragraph 9 (Part B) of the order of sentence:

The sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 5(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, which is the rigorous imprisonment for ten years, shall commence at the expiration of the other sentences of imprisonments.” must stand deleted. Ordered accordingly.”

Photo by Saad Chaudhry on Unsplash