A trial court while sentencing an accused to life imprisonment cannot order that such imprisonment is for the remainder of natural life, the Supreme Court reiterated..A Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi accepted the contention raised in this regard by a murder accused.However, despite accepting the argument on law, the top court proceeded to confirm the trial court judgment taking into account the facts of the case..“It is true that the punishment of remainder of natural life could not have been imposed by the learned trial Judge but after looking into the entire case, we consider it appropriate to confirm the sentence of imprisonment for life to mean the remainder of natural life while upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC,” the Court ruled..The Court was hearing an appeal filed by one Gauri Shankar, accused of committing the murder of two minor children aged 4 years and 2 years in brutal manner by administering celphos to them.The case of the prosecution was that complainant was married to one Ajay Kumar and from this wedlock, she had two children..Ajay Kumar was addicted to liquor and died of health issues due to his alcohol addiction. The accused-appellant, who was residing on rent in the neighbourhood of complainant, allegedly enticed her brought her along with her two children to Punjab where the fateful incident took place..The appellant, as per the prosecution, used to quarrel with the complainant and frequently beat the children stating that he did not like them as they were not his kids.On March 18, 2013, the complainant had gone to the temple for prayers leaving the children in the house. When she returned, she found the children struggling for life.She raised alarm and with the assistance of the landlord and his nephew, took both the children to the hospital where they were declared dead..The accused initially admitted that he had administered poison to the children as a result of which they died. However, he later contested the case.The trial court found him guilty of murder under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and punished him with imprisonment for life which would mean remainder of natural life and fine of Rs. 5,000 by a judgment dated July 1, 2013..The High Court confirmed the same leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.It was contended by the appellant that while convicting him for offence under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for the rest of his natural life..Such a power is not in the domain of the trial Court and it could have been exercised only by the High Court or by the Supreme Court, it was argued..“On the legal principles, the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct, but we have taken note of the prosecution case in totality with motive of the crime that he was living in a relationship with the complainant Anju who had two children from the previous marriage, and had taken away the life of two minor innocent children at the very threshold of their life and murdered in a brutal manner by administering celphos to them has been established,” the Court held..Consequently, the appeal was dismissed..[Read Judgment]
A trial court while sentencing an accused to life imprisonment cannot order that such imprisonment is for the remainder of natural life, the Supreme Court reiterated..A Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi accepted the contention raised in this regard by a murder accused.However, despite accepting the argument on law, the top court proceeded to confirm the trial court judgment taking into account the facts of the case..“It is true that the punishment of remainder of natural life could not have been imposed by the learned trial Judge but after looking into the entire case, we consider it appropriate to confirm the sentence of imprisonment for life to mean the remainder of natural life while upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC,” the Court ruled..The Court was hearing an appeal filed by one Gauri Shankar, accused of committing the murder of two minor children aged 4 years and 2 years in brutal manner by administering celphos to them.The case of the prosecution was that complainant was married to one Ajay Kumar and from this wedlock, she had two children..Ajay Kumar was addicted to liquor and died of health issues due to his alcohol addiction. The accused-appellant, who was residing on rent in the neighbourhood of complainant, allegedly enticed her brought her along with her two children to Punjab where the fateful incident took place..The appellant, as per the prosecution, used to quarrel with the complainant and frequently beat the children stating that he did not like them as they were not his kids.On March 18, 2013, the complainant had gone to the temple for prayers leaving the children in the house. When she returned, she found the children struggling for life.She raised alarm and with the assistance of the landlord and his nephew, took both the children to the hospital where they were declared dead..The accused initially admitted that he had administered poison to the children as a result of which they died. However, he later contested the case.The trial court found him guilty of murder under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and punished him with imprisonment for life which would mean remainder of natural life and fine of Rs. 5,000 by a judgment dated July 1, 2013..The High Court confirmed the same leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.It was contended by the appellant that while convicting him for offence under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for the rest of his natural life..Such a power is not in the domain of the trial Court and it could have been exercised only by the High Court or by the Supreme Court, it was argued..“On the legal principles, the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct, but we have taken note of the prosecution case in totality with motive of the crime that he was living in a relationship with the complainant Anju who had two children from the previous marriage, and had taken away the life of two minor innocent children at the very threshold of their life and murdered in a brutal manner by administering celphos to them has been established,” the Court held..Consequently, the appeal was dismissed..[Read Judgment]
