The Supreme Court has held that a Sessions Court sentencing a person for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot direct that the person remain in prison for the rest of their life in a manner that excludes statutory remission or commutation. Setting aside such a direction in a case involving the murder of a woman and her two young daughters, the Court sentenced two convicts to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without statutory remission. Their convictions remain intact.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Panchol made clear that an ordinary life sentence means imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life, but remains subject to the applicable remission and commutation framework. A sentence that rules out those statutory benefits is a distinct sentencing measure that a Sessions Court cannot impose.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – 5 Month Combo (2026) (1st February – 30th June 2026)
Background of the case
The prosecution case arose from the deaths of Pinki, also known as Simran, and her daughters, aged eight and five. According to the judgment, the three left Pinki’s father’s home in Ludhiana on the evening of December 27, 2009, saying they were going to buy eatables. When they did not return, the family searched for them. Their bodies were found near railway tracks the following morning with injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons.
Police initially registered a murder case against unknown persons. The investigation led to the arrest of Pinki’s husband, Ashok Kumar; his brother, Jyoti Kumar; and his friend, Naval Kishore. The prosecution relied on witness testimony, alleged extra-judicial confessions, recoveries and forensic evidence. The alleged motive included Ashok Kumar’s suspicions about Pinki and the paternity of the children, as well as a plan to claim insurance money.
In April 2014, the trial court convicted all three under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and directed that they “remain in prison till rest of their life”, along with a fine of ₹2,500 each. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed their appeal in December 2022 and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court noted, however, that the High Court had not examined the trial court’s authority to add the lifelong imprisonment direction.
The sentencing question before the Supreme Court
Naval Kishore and Jyoti Kumar brought the matter to the Supreme Court. At this stage, their conviction was no longer under challenge; the Court considered whether the trial court could lawfully prevent their release for the rest of their natural lives and, if it could not, what sentence should replace that direction.
The appellants argued that the trial court had exceeded its sentencing authority. Punjab opposed any reduction, pointing to the planned killing of three people, including two children.
The Supreme Court drew a distinction between life imprisonment and a special category sentence that excludes statutory remission. It referred to the Constitution Bench ruling in Union of India v. V. Sriharan, which recognised the power to impose a specified period of imprisonment without remission, or imprisonment until death, in appropriate cases. That power, the Court said, belongs to the High Courts and the Supreme Court, not to Sessions Courts.
The Bench also observed that Parliament has expressly used language requiring imprisonment for the remainder of a person’s natural life in certain other IPC provisions, while Section 302 continues to prescribe death or imprisonment for life. The trial court was entitled to impose life imprisonment for murder, but could not add a direction that, in effect, removed the statutory possibility of remission or commutation.
Why the Court imposed 25 years without remission
The Supreme Court did not accept the appellants’ request for release based on the time they had already spent in custody. It considered the premeditated killing of three people, the ages of the two children and the injuries inflicted with sharp-edged weapons to be serious aggravating circumstances.
It also considered the appellants’ individual circumstances. Custody records showed that, as of July 8, 2026, Naval Kishore had served 12 years, five months and 20 days of actual custody, while Jyoti Kumar had served 11 years, six months and nine days. Prison reports described both men’s conduct as satisfactory.
Balancing those factors, the Court held that ordinary life imprisonment subject to the statutory remission regime would not adequately meet the ends of justice, while imprisonment for the rest of their natural lives would be disproportionate in this case. Exercising its own sentencing power, it substituted 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without statutory remission for each appellant.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
