Skip to main content

Life Imprisonment in India - By Isha

 Life Imprisonment in India – By Isha


It is often shown in the Bollywood movies that a hero comes out of the jail after completing life imprisonment of 14 years. But does a life imprisonment is of 14 years or 20 years or does it actually mean till the end of one’s life. 

To understand the concept of Life imprisonment we need to know the important provisions in Indian Penal Code and Criminal Code regarding life imprisonment and it’s commutation.


  1. Section 53, IPC

This section deals with various kinds of punishment. There are five kinds of punishment:

  • Death Penalty

  • Life Imprisonment

  • Imprisonment- Simple and Rigorous

  • Fine

  • Forfeiture of Property


Suppose, if a person is awarded life imprisonment. After the sentence of life imprisonment, the person is sent to the custody of either the central government or state government. Now, it is the responsibility of the government to execute the life imprisonment of the convict.


  1.  Section 55, IPC

It deals with commutation. Commutation is the act of changing a punishment to one that is less severe. It gives power to the Government to commute life sentence. It authorises the Central or State Government to commute the life imprisonment of a convict for a term not exceeding 14 years without his consent on the basis of his mental condition, health, behaviour, family situation etc. 

Under Article 72 and Article 161 , the President and the Governor respectively has the power to pardon, reprieve, respites, or remit the punishment of the offender.


  1. Section 57, IPC

It deals with calculating fractions of terms of punishment. This section states that the term for increasing or decreasing punishment is 20 years. 

Due to this, misconception arises that life imprisonment is of maximum 14 or 20 years which is not the case.


  1.  Section 432 ( Power to suspend or remit sentences) and 433 ( power to commute sentences) of CrPC 

These sections states that, the appropriate government may, without the consent of the person can commute or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.

  1.  Section 433A, CrPC

It provides restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases. It states that an offender who was imposed with death penalty has been commuted to life imprisonment under section 433, such person has to serve at least 14 years of imprisonment.

It was enacted to deny premature release before completion of 14 years. 


Conclusion

There is nothing which limits life imprisonment to 14 or 20 years. It is a misconception spread out in India that after the completion of 14 years the convict is set free. The Supreme Court had clarified that life imprisonment means that the convict will be in prison for the rest of his life. The minimum 14 year limit is a separate provision of the Criminal Procedure Code which states that State governments can remit or commute the life imprisonment but a convict has to undergo at least 14 years of imprisonment. Some State governments are misusing this provision to reduce the punishment of the convicts. Last year the home ministry has told states to stop this wholesale remission and start dealing with cases on a one-to-one basis.


  





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree