
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a sessions court cannot impose a special category sentence directing a convict to remain in prison for the remainder of their natural life, excluding the…
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a sessions court cannot impose a special category sentence directing a convict to remain in prison for the remainder of their natural life, excluding the statutory remission and commutation regime. A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi said this power belongs only to constitutional courts, namely high courts and the Supreme Court, and not to inferior criminal courts.

The court upheld the conviction of two men for the murder of a woman and her two minor daughters in Ludhiana, Punjab in December 2009. However, it modified the sentence imposed by the sessions court and affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The direction that the appellants remain in prison for the rest of their life was set aside and substituted with rigorous imprisonment for 25 years, without the benefit of statutory remission.
All three sources report the same legal principle neutrally, with live law focusing on the precedent and siasat.com and deccanherald.com emphasising the case facts. The core holding is that a sessions court overstepped its jurisdiction by barring remission, a power only constitutional courts hold. The Supreme Court balanced the gravity of a triple murder with the time already served and good conduct, arriving at 25 years without remission. This clarifies that trial courts cannot circumvent the remission framework, even for heinous crimes.
Coverage: 3 sources, 3 neutral
Sources (3): livelaw.in (neutral report), siasat.com (neutral report), deccanherald.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 3 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry.
Updated: this story now draws on 3 sources.