Delhi HC Rejects Husband’s Challenge To 35-Year Actual Jail Term Before Remission For Acid-Attack Murder Of Wife

In brief

The question

Whether the Trial Court’s direction requiring the petitioner to serve 35 years before remission could be considered was invalid because a Trial Court lacks power to impose a fixed-term or modified sentence

The court held

The Court dismissed the writ petition and the pending application, with no order as to costs.

It also directed

It declined to disturb the sentence previously upheld on appeal and left the petitioner without the requested resentencing hearing.

01Facts

The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC for an acid attack on his wife that caused her death. The Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment and directed that he serve an actual term of 35 years before remission could be considered.

pp. 2–4

The High Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the sentence; the Supreme Court later dismissed his SLP.

p. 5, 9

Relying on Union of India v. V. Sriharan, the petitioner sought to set aside the sentencing order and obtain a rehearing, contending that a Trial Court lacked power to impose a fixed-term sentence.

pp. 9–10

02Issues

i.Whether the Trial Court’s direction requiring the petitioner to serve 35 years before remission could be considered was invalid because a Trial Court lacks power to impose a fixed-term or modified sentence

pp. 10, 14–18

ii.Whether the sentencing order, after being upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP, could be interfered with in the present writ petition

pp. 11, 23–24

03Law Applied

Under V. Sriharan, imprisonment for life ordinarily means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s life, subject to applicable remission powers; the power to impose a modified or fixed-term sentence beyond the ordinary remission regime belongs to the High Court and Supreme Court, not a Trial Court.

pp. 14–18

Shiva Kumar, Vikas Chaudhary and Ravinder Singh reaffirmed and elaborated on that principle, including its application beyond cases where death is imposed or proposed.

pp. 16–23

Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution and Sections 432–435 CrPC concern executive remission and commutation powers.

p. 12

The Court also considered the petitioner’s reliance on Kanishk Sinha regarding retrospective application and the State’s reliance on Neeta Singh concerning interference after appellate confirmation.

pp. 10–11

Provisions in the judgment · 16 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 374 Section 432 Section 433 Section 434 Section 435 Section 372

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 307 Section 45 Section 53 Section 54 Section 55 Section 57 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the governing distinction that a Trial Court cannot impose a special fixed-term sentence, while a High Court may do so.

pp. 17–19, 23–24

However, it noted that the High Court had considered the gravity of the offence and upheld the sentence, and that the Supreme Court had dismissed the petitioner’s SLP.

pp. 23–24

Because the sentencing order had thus been affirmed by courts empowered to impose a fixed-term sentence, the Court found no reason to interfere in this writ petition. It did not set aside the sentence or direct a rehearing.

p. 24