While dealing with Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2021 titled Gauri Shankar Vs. The State of Punjab, a division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed and held that “It is true that the learned trial Judge could not have punished remainder of natural life, but after looking into the entire case, we consider it appropriate to confirm the sentence of imprisonment for life to mean the remainder of natural life while upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
In this case, the Constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in Union of India Vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan and Others, 2016(7) SCC 1, that “the power derived from the Penal Code for any 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 only by the Supreme Court and not by the Appellate Court.”
In this case, the accused/appellant brutally murdered two small children, ages 4 and 2, by administering celphos to them. The charge under section 302 of the IPC, 1860, was substantiated against the accused/appellant in the trial court, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment, which would mean the rest of his natural life, and the Hon’ble High Court confirmed this. On behalf of the accused/appellant, it was argued that while convicting the accused-appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, which would mean a remainder of natural life that was not within the trial Court’s jurisdiction, and that this could have been exercised only by the appellate court.
Leave a Reply