Search the Internet          Tips

Life imprisonment is for life: SC

Clearing a major misconception, the Supreme Court has held that the law does not confer any right on a person serving a sentence for life to be released from prison after 20 years of incarceration.

"A sentence of imprisonment for life means a sentence for the entire life of the prisoner unless the appropriate government chooses to exercise its discretion to remit either the whole or part of the sentence," a bench of Justice S Rajendra Babu and Justice S N Phukan has said.

In a recent judgement, the bench said the Supreme Court after examining provisions of Article 151 of the Constitution, Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Penal Code had held that a sentence of imprisonment for life does not automatically expire at the end of 20 years of imprisonment.

Justice Phukan, writing the judgement for the bench, said the only right which a life convict could be said to have acquired was a right to have his case put up by the prison authorities in time to the state government for consideration for premature release.

He said in considering the case of a life convict the government would take into consideration the circumstances in each case, the character of the convict's crime, his conduct in prison and the probability of his reverting to criminal activities or instigating others to commit crime.

Four persons convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment approached the Supreme Court as their prayer for premature release was rejected by the West Bengal government even after they had been imprisoned for over 24 years, including the periods of remission.

The Supreme Court had set aside the government order and asked it to reconsider the plea of the convicts for premature release. However, the government again rejected their plea.

The Review Board of the state government giving reasons for the rejection of the plea said the police report was adverse, the convicts were not overaged and as such had not lost the potentiality to commit crime.

The bench said in its opinion the conduct of the petitioners while in jail was an important factor to be considered as to whether they had lost their potentiality in committing crime due to long period of detention.

"The views of the witnesses, who were examined during trial and the people of the locality cannot determine whether petitioners would be a danger to the locality, if released prematurely," Justice Phukan said.

Terming the reasons given by the Review Board as "irrelevant and devoid of any merit," the bench quashed the order and asked the state government to consider the plea of the convicts afresh within three months.

PTI

Tell us what you think of this report