LI Network
Published on: October 4, 2023 at 11:37 IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that trial courts lack the authority to impose life sentences on convicts with a stipulation that the sentence extends to “full life” or “until natural death.”
Justice Deepak Gupta clarified that only the High Court or the Supreme Court can impose such a condition.
The court emphasized that the trial court’s order sentencing the petitioner to life imprisonment with the stipulation to extend it to full life violates the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others.
The bench stated that only the High Court or the Supreme Court can pass such a sentence.
The court also made it clear that the pendency of an appeal by a convict against such a conviction order does not prevent the convict from seeking premature release, following the State’s policy dated 08.08.2011.
In a specific case, Ravdeep Kaur was convicted by a sessions court in Chandigarh in a murder case and sentenced to life imprisonment until her natural death. Her appeal against this conviction is pending before the High Court, and during this time, she sought premature release.
The Superintendent of Central Jail, Patiala, argued that prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment until death or natural life are not eligible for premature release under Punjab Government’s policy.
It was also mentioned that Kaur was convicted and sentenced to three years in 2014 under the Punjab Good Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, and Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC because she did not surrender after being released on emergency parole.
Citing the Neki Nalwa vs. State of Punjab and others (2017) case, the Court stated that the petitioner’s case for premature release could not be withheld solely because of the pending appeal before the Division Bench of the court.
The Court also noted that the female prisoner had already served almost double the custody period required by the State policy for premature release.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that her case could not be considered due to the jail conviction in 2014, as the subsequent sentence was to run concurrently with the earlier sentence of life imprisonment.
The Court directed the state authorities to consider the petitioner’s case for premature release in accordance with its policy dated 08.08.2011, and until a decision is reached, she will be released on interim bail upon providing the required bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The Court emphasized that its order is subject to the final outcome of the petitioner’s appeal, and if the Appellate Court determines that she must serve life imprisonment until her natural life, she must surrender as directed by the Appellate Court upon appeal disposal.