Sessions Court Cannot Bar Remission or Deny Set‑Off; Life Sentence Confirmed Subject to Statutory Remission

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal challenging both the conviction and the sentencing directions in a case where a widow was set ablaze and later died. The limited notice related to whether the Sessions Court was correct in imposing life imprisonment described as running "till the end of his natural life" and in directing that the accused should not be granted the benefit of set‑off/remission under the Cr.P.C.

The Court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC and confirmed the award of imprisonment for life, but held that a Sessions Court could not, as a matter of law, curtail the statutory and constitutional powers of remission and commutation or take away the statutory entitlement to set‑off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The Court noted that "The sentence of life imprisonment no doubt means the entire life, subject only to the remission and commutation provided under Cr. PC and also to Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India," and proceeded to clarify the limits of sentencing powers available to trial courts. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Going by the decisions cited, it has to be held that life imprisonment awarded would be for the rest of the life, the power to grant remission and commutation under Sections 432 to 435 Cr.PC cannot be curtailed by the Sessions Court, when the remission as provided under the Constitution was declared to be not permissible of interference by the Constitutional Courts. The power of alternate sentencing to cover the hiatus between 14 years and death, cannot be applied by the Sessions Courts. Hence, the sentence of life imprisonment cannot be directed to be till the end of natural life, by the Sessions Court which direction would be in conflict with the provisions of the Cr. PC. The power of remission or commutation conferred on the State cannot be taken away and the sentence as awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is confirmed as imprisonment for life.” The Court therefore deleted the direction barring set‑off under Section 428 and allowed the accused to avail of set‑off and eventual remission/commutation as per law and government policy.

Background

The dispute arose from an incident on 1 January 2014 at about 11:30 pm when the accused, a relative by marriage, allegedly entered the shanty where the deceased widow lived with her daughters. The woman resisted ongoing sexual advances and the accused allegedly poured kerosene over her and set her on fire. She was initially taken to a local hospital, then transferred to Hyderabad, and died after ten days; medical evidence established 60% burns. Several close relatives, including the father and a daughter of the deceased (PW‑1 and PW‑7), turned hostile on key points, but neighbours PW‑8 and PW‑24 testified that they came immediately on hearing the hue and cry, and PW‑24 said he saw the accused running away. Crucially, the Court relied on the dying declaration(s): Exhibit P‑27 recorded on 02.01.2014 at Nikhil Hospital by PW‑25 (the Head Constable/SHO deputed) and a question‑and‑answer form Exhibit P‑23 recorded by the Magistrate (PW‑21) the next day, in the presence of the duty doctor (PW‑22), who confirmed that the deceased was conscious and coherent. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and directed that he should not be granted set‑off; the High Court confirmed conviction and sentence.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and upheld the conviction, finding the dying declarations and eyewitness evidence sufficient despite some witnesses turning hostile. The Court applied precedents including Swamy Shraddananda (2), Union of India v. V. Sriharan (Murugan), and related decisions to hold that the power to impose life imprisonment without remission as an alternative to death, or to exclude remission/set‑off, was a power confined to Constitutional Courts (the Supreme Court and High Courts) and could not be exercised by a Sessions Court. The Court partly allowed the appeal: it confirmed life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC but deleted the Sessions Court's direction denying set‑off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.; other sentences were confirmed to run concurrently. The accused remained entitled to avail of remission or commutation in due course, subject to governmental decision and policy. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1453 Case Title: Kiran v. The State of Karnataka Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Appearing counsel not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Appearing counsel not indicated in judgment]