Convicted killer Chandrakant Jha in his petition argued that the imposition of imprisonment till natural life was unconstitutional for the reason that it completely snatches the chance of reformation and violates remission policy and rules prescribed by state governments. The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Delhi Government to respond to a plea filed by serial killer raising the issue of whether the specification of ‘life sentence’ would mean until the whole life or if it can be commuted or remitted by way of remission.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Supreme Court of India has initiated a pivotal discussion on the interpretation of ‘life sentence’ within the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically questioning whether it implies incarceration for the convict’s entire natural life or if there exists a possibility for commutation or remission. This inquiry was prompted by a plea from Chandrakant Jha, a serial killer, convicted individual with a notorious background, who has been linked to multiple murders.
The bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra, has formally requested the Delhi Government to present its stance on this matter. Jha, through his advocate Rishi Malhotra, has challenged the conventional understanding of life imprisonment, suggesting a need for a more defined sentencing period. This plea draws upon the precedent set in the Swamy Shraddanand case, aiming to clarify the scope of sentencing under Section 302 of the IPC.
Jha’s legal representation has articulated a compelling argument against the notion that ‘life sentence’ inherently means imprisonment until the end of the convict’s natural life. Highlighting the explicit mention of two distinct punishments under Section 302 of the IPC-death and life imprisonment.
Malhotra argues that the legislative intent was not to equate life imprisonment strictly with the convict’s natural lifespan. This interpretation, according to the plea, inadvertently infringes upon the fundamental rights of the convicted, particularly violating the principle of reformation, which is deemed a cornerstone of penal jurisprudence.
The petition emphatically states-
“It is pertinent to mention here that if imprisonment for life is construed as natural life then it violates the fundamental right of a convicted person. Therefore, it is submitted that imposition of such imprisonment till natural life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is unconstitutional, inter alia for the reason that it completely snatches the chance of reformation of an individual and violates remission policy and rules prescribed by the State Governments.”
Further elaborating on the essence of reformation, the plea underscores the judiciary’s history of commuting sentences for heinous crimes, reflecting a belief in the potential for rehabilitation.
“Reformation is one of the most important aspects of jurisprudence of theory of punishment. Larger numbers of judgments have shown that even in case of heinous crime there is a chance of reformation of a convict. This Court has commuted sentences in many cases and directed various State Governments to consider the case of a convict for remission in most cases provides for a minimum sentence of 20/25/30 years of sentence.”
Chandrakant Jha who hails from Bihar, with convictions in three separate cases under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC, leading to a life sentence without the possibility of remission. His crimes, committed between 2003 and 2007, involved the murder of six individuals, followed by the disposal of headless bodies outside Tihar Jail, accompanied by taunting notes to the Delhi Police.
This legal inquiry by the Supreme Court into the nature of life sentences opens a broader dialogue on the balance between punishment and rehabilitation, challenging existing norms and potentially setting a precedent for future sentencing in India.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
