SC seeks Delhi Government’s response on plea seeking specification of ‘life sentence’

New Delhi [India], February 9 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Delhi Government to file a reply to a plea whether raising the issue as to whether the specification of ‘life sentence’ would mean the whole life or can it be commuted or remitted by way of remission.

A bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra issued notice on the plea filed by alleged serial killer Chanderkant Jha.

Jha in his plea filed through advocate Rishi Malhotra has urged the top court to allow his petition which raised the issue of whether the petitioner can be awarded a -fixed period of sentence keeping in view of the ratio in the Swamy Shraddanand case.

Advocate Rishi Malhotra has raised the issue as to whether the specification of ‘life sentence’ would mean the whole life or can be commuted or remitted by way of remission powers under Section 432 of CrPC.

Jha has been convicted of murder and tampering of evidence charges have been sentenced to life imprisonment until natural life. Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order convicting him under the murder charges.

Advocate Malhotra mentioned that Section 302 of IPC expressly mentioned two punishments i.e. one is punishment of death and the second is imprisonment for life and does not mention any other punishment apart from these two.

He submitted that the legislature has not intended consciously to amend Section 302 of IPC and add the till natural life instead of only life. Therefore, the law does not contemplate that life means natural only.

“It is pertinent to mention here that if imprisonment for life is construed as natural life then it violates the fundamental right of a convicted person. Therefore, it is submitted that imposition of such imprisonment till natural life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is unconstitutional, interalia for the reason that it completely snatches the chance of reformation of an individual and violates remission policy and rules prescribed by the State Governments,” the petition said.

“Reformation is one of the most important aspects of jurisprudence of theory of punishment. Larger numbers of judgments have shown that even in case of heinous crime there is a chance of reformation of a convict. This Court has commuted sentences in many cases and directed various State Governments to consider the case of a convict for remission in most cases provides for a minimum sentence of 20/25/30 years of sentence,” the petition said.

Chandra Kant Jha, who was convicted in three different FIRs for an offence punishable under Section 302 (murder) IPC, was awarded the punishment of life imprisonment with a direction that he would not be released on remission for the remainder of his natural life.

Jha, who hails from Bihar, had allegedly killed six people from 2003 to 2007. After killing, Jha dumped the headless body outside the Tihar jail with notes to Delhi Police, challenging them to catch him.