DATTU CHIMANRAO MARATHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge has sentenced the accused appellant to imprisonment for life for the offence of murder and there cannot be any quarrel with the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge for the said offence but the 9earned trial Judge has given following directions while sentencing the accused to imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under sec. 302 I.P.C.

(2.) The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider in the case of Gopal Vinayuk Godse v. State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 600 as to how long the prisoner has to remain in jail when he is sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held in that case that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound to serve the remainder of his life in prison unless the sentence imposed upon him is commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority. It appears that the learned trial Judge has added the above words in his judgment in. view of this interpretation put by the Supreme Court. The interpretation put by the Supreme Court is binding on all concerned and that way so far as the interpretation of the said words is concerned no fault can be found with the interpretation made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. But the Court has only to say that the prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Court has not to interpret the said sentence while imposting the same. It is for the authorities concerned With the execution of the sentence to interpret as to what is meant by imprisonment for life. The Court has simply to say that the accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Vinayak Godse (supra) itself shows that unless the sentence of imprisonment for life is communicated or remitted by the appropriate authority under the provisions of sec. 55 I.P.C or the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 secs. 432 and 433 of the Code a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound in law to serve the life tantrum in prison. Sec. 55 of I.P.C reads as under: In every case in which sentence of imprisonment for life shall have been passed the appropriate Government may without the consent of the offender commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years". Sub-sec. (1) and sub-sec. (7) of sec. 432 of Criminal Procedure Cede 1973 ad as follows:

(3.) Article 72 of the Constitution of india vests in the president of india power to grant pardons reprieves respites or remission all punishment or commute the sentence while Article 161 of the Constitution vests in the Governor of a state such power. The power is thus vested in the President or the Governor as the case may be to remit or commute the sentence of imprisonment. The Court cannot by giving directions as done by the learned trial Judge in the present case take away the powers of the President the Governor or the appropriate Government which powers are vested in the above authorities by the provisions of the Constitution of India. the Code of criminal Procedure 1973 and the Indian Penal Code. The power being vested in the President the Governor and the appropriate Government to commute or remit the sentence the Court. naturally cannot direct the said authorities either to commute the sentence or to remit the sentence or any part thereof. The Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Vinayak Godse (supra) took took view that the question of remission and/or commutation is exclusively within the province of the appropriate Government. This shows that the Court cannot give any directions in the matter to the appropriate Government.