In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared that trial courts do not possess the authority to sentence convicts to life imprisonment with the stipulation that it lasts for their
“full life”
or
“until natural death.”
This clarification was made by Justice Deepak Gupta, who emphasized that only the High Court or the Supreme Court can impose such conditions.
The High Court underscored that the trial court’s decision to sentence the petitioner to life imprisonment, with the extension to full life, contravenes the Supreme Court’s verdict in the case of V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others. It was reiterated that only higher courts, namely the High Court or the Supreme Court, have the jurisdiction to pass such sentences.
Additionally, the court clarified that if a convict has an ongoing appeal against a conviction, it doesn’t bar them from seeking premature release, in line with the State’s policy dated 08.08.2011.
Delving into specifics, Ravdeep Kaur had been sentenced by a sessions court in Chandigarh for a murder case, with her life imprisonment extending
“until her natural death.”
While her appeal against this conviction is under review by the High Court, Kaur has petitioned for premature release. Contrarily, the Superintendent of Central Jail, Patiala, contended that prisoners with such life sentences are not qualified for premature release as per the Punjab Government’s policy.
Highlighting a past incident, it was noted that Kaur had been sentenced to three years in 2014 under the Punjab Good Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, and Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC for failing to return after being granted emergency parole.
Drawing from the Neki Nalwa vs. State of Punjab and others (2017) case, the Court articulated that Kaur’s request for premature release couldn’t be denied solely due to her appeal’s pendency. It was also observed that she had already served nearly double the custody duration mandated by the State policy for premature release.
Dismissing the contention that her 2014 jail conviction could hinder her case, the Court stated that the subsequent sentence would run concurrently with her prior life imprisonment sentence.
Conclusively, the Court directed state officials to evaluate Kaur’s plea for premature release in alignment with its 08.08.2011 policy. Until a final decision is made, Kaur will be granted interim bail, contingent on her furnishing the necessary bonds to the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s satisfaction. However, the Court’s order remains provisional and will be subject to the final verdict of Kaur’s appeal. If the Appellate Court mandates her life imprisonment to continue
“until natural death,”
she will be obligated to surrender as directed post-appeal resolution.
