RAVINDER SINGH versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 25-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
RAVINDER SINGH
v.
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2023)
APRIL 25, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 432 – Penal Code,
1860 – ss. 45, 53 – Power to impose a modified punishment – Special
category sentencing to life imprisonment in excess of 14 years –
Appellant was convicted for having committed offence u/s. 376,
377, 506 and was sentenced to life imprisonment – Trial Court
directed that the appellant should not be given any clemency by the
State before he spent at least 20 years in jail – Same was confirmed
by the High Court – On appeal, held: It is settled that the power to
impose a modified punishment within the punishment provided for
in the Penal Code for such specified offences can only be exercised
by the High Court and in the event of further appeal, by the Supreme
Court, and not by any other Court in the country – In the light of
this settled legal position, it was clearly not within the domain of
the Additional Sessions Judge to impose a restriction that the term
of the appellant’s life imprisonment should be for at least 20 years
and that he should not be given any clemency till then – Such power
could only be exercised by the High Courts or by Supreme Court –
In the instant case, the child was raped by her father during the
month of August, 2012, so the amended provisions s.376(2)(f) and
s.376(3) have no role to play – Now, the maximum punishment
prescribed by law is imprisonment for life with nothing further –
Even in such cases, it would be a parody of justice to allow the
convicts so sentenced to avail the benefit of remissions and the like,
liberally conferred by the State, and cut short the length of their life
sentence to a mere 14 years – Special category sentencing to life
imprisonment in excess of 14 years by fixing a lengthier term would
be available to the High Courts and this Court, even in cases where
the maximum punishment, permissible in law and duly imposed, is
life imprisonment with nothing further – Exercise of such power
must be restricted to grave cases – Appellant herein was found guilty
of one of the most monstrous and horrific of offences – Therefore,
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 480
480
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
481
the appellant directed to serve the life imprisonment for a minimum
of 20 years of actual incarceration before he can seek remissions
under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or
any other enacted law – Constitution of India – Arts.72 and 161.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Affirming the view taken in Swamy
Shraddananda, the majority opinion in V. Sriharan observed that
it could be said without any scope for controversy that, when by
way of a judicial decision after a detailed analysis, having regard
to the proportionality of the crime committed, it is decided that
the offender deserves to be punished with the sentence of life
imprisonment, i.e., till the end of his life or for a specific period of
20 years or 30 years or 40 years, such a conclusion should survive
without any interruption. It was, therefore, held that in order to
ensure that the punishment imposed, which is legally provided
for in the Penal Code read along with Criminal Procedure Code,
operates without any interruption, the inherent power of the Court
concerned should empower the Court, in public interest as well
as in the interest of the society at large, to make it certain that
such punishment will operate, as imposed, by stating that no
remission or other liberal approach should come into effect to
nullify such imposition. It was further observed that no prohibition
is prescribed in the Penal Code, or for that matter any of the
provisions where death penalty or life imprisonment is provided
for, that imprisonment cannot be imposed for a specific period
within the said life span and, when life imprisonment means the
whole life span of the person convicted, it cannot be said that the
Court which is empowered to impose the said punishment cannot
specify the period up to which the said sentence of life should
remain, befitting the nature of the crime committed. The majority
opinion, therefore, concluded by stating that the ratio laid down
in Swamy Shraddananda, that a special category of sentence,
instead of death, can be substituted by the punishment of
imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 14 years and that
category can be put beyond application of remiss

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.