Supreme Court of India· 24 September 2026

Can a Constitutional Court alter the sentence itself once a Sessions Court's special category direction is found not competent?

NAVAL KISHORE & ANR v. STATE OF PUNJAB

2026 INSC 1048
Coram: Justice Aravind Kumar · Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

A Constitutional Court can itself alter the sentence within its own sentencing power once a Sessions Court's special category direction is found not competent.

Yes. Having held that the Sessions Court could not competently direct that the appellants remain in prison till the rest of their life, the Court, exercising its own power as a Constitutional Court, was not confined to ordinary life imprisonment; having regard to the gravity of the offence, the period already undergone and the satisfactory conduct of the appellants in custody, it altered the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without the benefit of statutory remission.

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — s.53 — s.45 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss.432-435 — Special category sentence — Sessions Court competence — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — Special category sentence — Competence — Held: A special category sentence of life imprisonment without remission, as an alternative to death, can be imposed only by the High Courts and the Supreme Court and not by a Sessions Court, whose competence under Section 302 IPC is confined to ordinary imprisonment for life subject to the statutory remission and commutation regime under Sections 432 to 435 Cr.P.C. (¶15, 25) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss.432-435 — Constitutional Court's own sentencing power — Held further: Once a Sessions Court's special category direction is found not competent, the Constitutional Court hearing the appeal may itself alter the sentence to a special category sentence within the permissible range, rather than being confined to ordinary life imprisonment. Sentence altered to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment without remission. (¶27, 32, 34)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 27As noted hereinabove, the power to impose a special category of sentence, whereby a convict is required to undergo imprisonment for a specified period beyond the ordinary remission or commutation regime, is vested only in the Constitutional Courts. In this regard, paragraph 79 of Navas (supra), reproduced hereinabove, is relevant, wherein this Court provides for the sentencing principles and considerations that guide the exercise of such power and it is held that the power is to be exercised sparingly and upon a holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature and gravity of the offence, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the role attributable to the accused, the period of incarceration already undergone, the conduct of the convict while in custody and the prospects of rehabilitation of the convict.

Paragraph 32Therefore, having regard to the gravity of the offence, the fact that three persons were killed including two minor children, the respective roles attributed to the appellants, the substantial period of incarceration already undergone by them, their satisfactory conduct during custody and the fact that the present proceedings are confined to the question of sentence, the ordinary imprisonment for life subject to the statutory remission or commutation regime would not adequately meet the ends of justice, whereas, imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the appellants would be disproportionate in the circumstances of the present case. In our considered view, the ends of justice would be 24 adequately met by altering the sentence of the appellants awarded by the Trial Court, i.e. rigorous imprisonment for life and “to remain in prison till rest of their life”, to the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 years, without any statutory remission.

Paragraph 34Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC is affirmed. However, the sentence imposed upon the appellants by the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the High Court, is modified to the extent indicated above. The direction requiring the appellants “to remain in prison till the rest of their life” is hereby set aside and in substitution thereof, both the appellants are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 years, without the benefit of any statutory remission.

Acts & Sections

s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.53 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.45 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.432 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.433 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.434 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.435 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of NAVAL KISHORE & ANR v. STATE OF PUNJAB — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can a Sessions Court impose a special category sentence excluding the statutory remission regime?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections