Of reckoning, Life Imprisonment
Why do we imprison a convict? It is
often argued that for prevention of crime and the offender’s rehabilitation. The
prevention, by putting him behind the bars, so that the crime may not recur in
society. And being a human, we believe in reformation and taking back offenders
into the mainstream, so the rehabilitation is another main factor to
imprisonment. It is true that punishment must be proportional to a crime, as it
would be unfair to shoot sparrows with cannon. And it must be for
rehabilitation of offenders and prevention of crime. But we cannot close our
eyes from retribution. Human vengeance is the supreme reason which urges them
to come to court. What, if this be remained alive in them. Eventually, they
will take law in their hands and would likely commit another crime for the sake
of justice or vengeance. This often happens here. Because courts consider that
life imprisonment under section 57[1]
of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as PPC) means, imprisonment
for twenty five years[2].
But this is not true. Life imprisonment means “imprisonment for the whole of
the remaining of convicted person’s natural life”[3],
and not twenty five years.
The issue arises when one barely
reads section 57 of PPC. It provides that, in calculating fractions of terms
of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to
imprisonment for twenty-five years[4].
By bare reading of the same, it seems that in reckoning life imprisonment
is twenty-five years. But the law is always interpret in its subject to the
context, keeping in due regard to the object and purpose of the statute. While
interpreting, one may get help from precedents. And here two sister
jurisdictions will be examined: Pakistan and India.
In Pakistan, a full member bench
judgement[5]
decides that the term ‘life imprisonment’ means twenty-five years imprisonment.
They referred section 57 of PPC and rule 140 of Pakistan Prison rules, 1978
(hereinafter referred as prison rules)[6].
In another case, Supreme Court ruled that the provincial government is
empowered under section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter
referred as CrPC) read with prison rules, to remit or commute the sentence of
convict, subject to the condition that he has undergone fifteen years of
imprisonment[7]. In
Pakistan, the concept is that after spending fifteen years behind the bars, if the
convict is not released on remission or commutation of sentence under section 401
CrPC read with Prison rules; then he will have to wait till the completion of
twenty-five years in toto[8].
In India, the situation is altogether
different in reckoning the life imprisonment. Their chief case law on this
issue is Gopal vinayak godse v State of Maharashtra[9].
In this case the Supreme Court of India held that “sentence of imprisonment for
life is not for any definite period and the imprisonment for life must, prima
facie, be treated as imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted
person’s natural life”. And further ruled in paragraph 8 of it, that “The Rules
framed under the Prisons Act enable such a prisoner to earn
remissions—ordinary, special and State—and the said remissions will be given
credit towards his term of imprisonment. For the purpose of working out the
remissions the sentence of transportation for life is ordinarily equated with a
definite period, but it is only for that particular purpose and not for any
other purpose. As the sentence of transportation for life or its prison
equivalent, the life imprisonment, is one of indefinite duration, the
remissions so earned do not in practice help such a convict as it is not
possible to predicate (sic predict) the time of his death. That is why the
Rules provide for a procedure to enable the appropriate Government to remit the
sentence under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a consideration
of the relevant factors, including the period of remissions earned”. Afterwards
there is no cavil in this proposition in India that meaning of life
imprisonment is, unless properly remitted by respective government,
imprisonment for the entire life of convict[10].
They many a times reiterate the Gopal vinayak godse’s case[11]
and in Kishori lal’ case of Privy Council[12]
in resolving this issue[13].
At last, it can be summarised as,
that the Prison rules cannot override the statute[14]
and the sentence of imprisonment for life was always meant to be imprisonment
till the convict’s natural life[15].
If it had not be, it would be meaningless to place it separately as a
punishment for Qatl under section 302 (b) and (c) of PPC[16].
And the redundancy is alien to statutory provisions. Although in practice, due
to remission and commutation of sentences, it amounts to incarceration for a
period of round-about fourteen, fifteen years or more. But this also should be “subject to the
condition that the sentence of imprisonment shall last as long as life lasts
where there are exceptional indications of murderous recidivism and the
community cannot run the risk of the convict being at large”[17].
Because the theory of retribution relieves the victims from vengeance, with
enforcement of imprisonment till last breath of convict’s life.
* The author’s name is Hafiz Muhammad Azeem,
practicing advocate High Court. He can be contacted on email at
Khokhar.azeem@yahoo.com
[1]
Section 57. Fractions of terms of punishment: In calculating fractions of terms
of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to
imprisonment for twenty-five years.
[2] Dilawar
hussain v state 2013 SCMR 1582, Zargul v state 1989 SCMR 529, Muhammad
nazir v superintendent 2018 PcrLJ 1185, Muhammad nawaz v state 2017
YLR 419,
[3] Kishori
lal v empror AIR 1945 PC 64
[4]
Section 57 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
[5] Dilawar
hussain v state 2013 SCMR 1582.
[6]
Rule 140. (i) Imprisonment for life will mean twenty-five years rigorous
imprisonment and every lifer prisoner shall undergo a minimum of fifteen years
substantive imprisonment.
(ii) The case of all prisoners sentenced to
imprisonment for life shall be referred to Government, through the Inspector
General, after they have served fifteen years substantive imprisonment for
consideration with reference to section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(iii) The cases of all prisoners sentenced to
cumulative periods of imprisonment aggregating twenty-five years or more shall
also be submitted to Government, through the Inspector General, when they have
served fifteen years substantive sentence for orders of the Government.
[7] Mst.
Zubaida v Falak sher 2007 SCMR 548, abdul malik v state PLD 2006 SC
365. Also see, section 55 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
[8] Bhai
khan v state PLD 1992 SC 14.
[9]
AIR 1961 SC 600.
[10] Parsanta
sen v B K Srivastava and others (2013) 3 SCC 425.
[11]
AIR 1961 SC 600.
[12] Kishori
lal v empror AIR 1945 PC 64.
[13] Naib
singh v state of punjab & ors 1983 SCR (2) 770, State of Madhya Pradesh
v Ratan Singh & Ors (1976) 3 SCC 470
[14] Kartar
singh & ors v State of Haryana, (1982) 3 SCC 1.
[15] Laxman
naskar v Union of India & Ors, (2000) 2 SCC 595, Mohd. Munna v Union
of India & Ors. etc. (2005) 7 SCC, 417, Dalbir Singh & Ors v State of
Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1384,
[16]
See, section 302 of Pakistan penal code, 1860.
[17] Rajendra
Prasad v State of U.P. (1979) 3 SCC 646.
