Supreme Court of India· 24 September 2026

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

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 special category sentence of life imprisonment without remission can be imposed only by the High Courts and Supreme Court, not a Sessions Court.

No. It is well settled that life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, read with Sections 53 and 45 IPC, means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life, subject to the statutory powers of remission and commutation, vested under Sections 432 to 435 of the Cr.P.C. in the appropriate Government. The power to impose a special category sentence, excluding or curtailing that statutory remission regime for a specified term or for life, can be exercised only by the High Courts and the Supreme Court as Constitutional Courts, and not by an inferior court such as a Sessions Court.

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 15It is well settled that, as per Section 53 read with Section 45 of the IPC, imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the convict. At the same time, such sentence is subject to the statutory powers of remission 11 and commutation vested in the appropriate Government under Sections 432 to 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) and the constitutional powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India.

Paragraph 18The aforesaid issue was thereafter considered by the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan, (2016) 7 SCC 1. The Constitution Bench affirmed the validity of such special category sentencing, however, 13 made it clear that the power to impose a special category punishment providing for a specified period of incarceration or imprisonment till the end of the life of convict, as an alternative to death penalty, could be exercised only by the Constitutional Courts, i.e. the Supreme Court and the High Courts. It has been observed as under:

Paragraph 25In light of the decisions considered hereinabove, we are of the view that there is no doubt that the Trial Court was competent to impose the punishment of imprisonment for life upon the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, however, at the same time, the Trial Court was not competent to impose a special category sentence that the appellants “to remain in prison till rest of their life”, which in substance and effect, excludes the statutory power of remission or commutation. Therefore, the High Court, while affirming the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, did not examine the competence of the Trial Court to impose such a sentence and thus, to that extent, the impugned judgment requires interference of this Court.

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

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