Supreme Court Clarifies Life Imprisonment: Lazer vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2013)

Date of the Judgment: July 15, 2013
Citation: Not Available
Judges: H.L. Gokhale, J and Madan B. Lokur, J.
Can a convict who has served over 26 years in prison be released? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case where the petitioner sought release based on the length of his imprisonment. The court clarified that a life sentence means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, while also acknowledging the State’s power to remit sentences. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices H.L. Gokhale and Madan B. Lokur.

Case Background

The petitioner, Lazer, had been imprisoned for over 26 years following his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, along with other charges. He filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking release from jail. The petitioner relied on a previous order of the Supreme Court in Harpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., where a convict was released after serving more than 20 years.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with punishment for murder. The court also discusses Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the State Government to remit sentences. The court clarified that a life sentence is for the remainder of a convict’s natural life.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code: This section specifies the punishment for murder.
• Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: This section empowers the State Government to remit sentences.

Arguments

The petitioner argued for his release based on the length of his imprisonment, citing a previous Supreme Court order in Harpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. where a convict was released after serving more than 20 years. However, the court noted that the release in the Harpal Singh case was based on the petitioner’s health condition, which was undisputed by the State.

The State of Tamil Nadu opposed the release, stating that the petitioner did not return to jail on six occasions when he was released on parole and also indulged in criminal activities while on parole.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this order. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the petitioner should be released from jail based on the length of his imprisonment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The court was primarily influenced by the legal interpretation of a life sentence, which it clarified to mean imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life. The court also considered the State’s concerns about the petitioner’s conduct while on parole.

The Supreme Court reasoned that while the petitioner had served a long time in prison, a life sentence, as per law, means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life. The court also noted that the State Government has the power to remit sentences under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court did not find the petitioner’s case similar to the Harpal Singh case, where the release was based on health grounds.

The court stated, “Now, the law in this behalf has been clarified and the sentence for life is interpreted to mean sentence for the whole life of the convict concerned.”

The court also observed, “The power, of course, remains with the State Government to remit the sentence as per rules if such an application is made to the State Government.”

The court further noted, “Be that as it may, it will be open to the petitioner to apply to the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and then it is for the State Government to consider the application in accordance with law.”

Key Takeaways

• Life imprisonment means imprisonment for the whole life of the convict.
• The State Government has the power to remit sentences under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Convicts seeking release should apply to the State Government for remission.
• The court will consider the conduct of the convict while on parole.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to apply to the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for remission of sentence. The court also directed the State Government to consider the application expeditiously.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a life sentence means imprisonment for the whole life of the convict. This clarifies the legal position on life imprisonment and reinforces the State’s power to remit sentences.

Conclusion

In Lazer vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court clarified that a life sentence means imprisonment for the whole life of the convict. The court did not order the immediate release of the petitioner but directed him to apply to the State Government for remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also acknowledged the State’s concerns about the petitioner’s conduct while on parole. This judgment reinforces the legal position on life imprisonment and the State’s power to remit sentences.