In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court clarified that trial courts are not authorized to impose a “special category sentence” or imprisonment for life without the possibility of remission, also referred to as imprisonment “till the last breath” of the convict. The bench, consisting of Justices K Somashekar and Rajesh Rai K, stated that only the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the authority to impose such sentences.
This decision is in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. V Sriharan Alias Murugan, a case related to the remission of the persons convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. In that case, the Supreme Court had expressed the necessity of special category sentences in light of the increase in heinous crimes, delays in case disposal, and the interests of victims. However, the High Court highlighted that the top court had added that
“such special category sentence can only be imposed by High Court or Supreme Court and not by trial court.”
The High Court’s observation came while dealing with an appeal challenging a trial court’s conviction and sentence of a man charged with murdering his paramour’s husband. The sessions court had sentenced the convicted man to life imprisonment, till his last breath. On appeal, the High Court upheld the man’s conviction but set aside the sessions court’s decision to punish the convict with imprisonment till his last breath, stating that trial courts cannot impose such a special category sentence.
The High Court held;
“In such circumstances, the Sessions Court cannot exercise such power to impose imprisonment to accused No.1 till his last breath. Hence, learned Sessions Judge erred on that count,”
The Court further found that the present case was not a “rarest of the rare case” to warrant the imposition of a special category sentence.
The High Court proceeded to modify the trial court’s order on punishment. The convict’s punishment was reduced from imprisonment till the last breath of his life to life imprisonment, which would include a possibility of remission after 14 years. In the same judgment, the Court also acquitted a co-accused, who was earlier accused of helping to shift the dead body of the murder victim.
This ruling underscores the importance of judicial hierarchy and the specific roles and powers of different courts in the justice system. It also highlights the ongoing debate around the nature and extent of punishments for serious crimes.