Sessions Court Cannot Impose Life Till Rest of Life: Naval Kishore v. Punjab [2026 INSC 1048]

In Naval Kishore & Anr. v. State of Punjab (2026 INSC 1048), the Supreme Court held that a Trial Court imposing life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC is not competent to direct that the convicts shall remain in prison for the rest of their lives, because such a direction excludes the statutory power of remission and commutation, and the power to impose such a special category sentence vests only in the Constitutional Courts (paras 18–19, 25, 33). A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi affirmed the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC but substituted the sentence with rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without the benefit of statutory remission (paras 32–34).

Status: Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC affirmed; trial court's direction that the appellants "remain in prison till rest of their life", as affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 12.12.2022, set aside; sentence modified to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment without statutory remission; appeal allowed in part (paras 33–35).

Headnote: Sessions Court Cannot Order Life Imprisonment Till Natural Life

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34, 45, 53 – Imprisonment for life – Special category sentence – Direction to "remain in prison till rest of their life" – Competence of Sessions Court – Remission and commutation – Sections 432 to 435 Cr.P.C. – Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution – Swamy Shraddananda (2) and V. Sriharan principle – Sentencing – Proportionality – Fixed-term imprisonment without remission.

Held: (i) Imprisonment for life under Sections 45 and 53 IPC means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life, but it remains subject to the statutory powers of remission and commutation under Sections 432 to 435 Cr.P.C. and the constitutional powers under Articles 72 and 161 (para 15).

(ii) The special category sentence evolved in Swamy Shraddananda (2) and affirmed by the Constitution Bench in V. Sriharan, fixing a term beyond the remission regime or imprisonment till the end of life, can be imposed only by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, not by a Sessions Court (paras 17–19, 27).

(iii) Section 302 IPC does not say that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, unlike Sections 376AB, 376DA and 376DB introduced in 2018; such a punishment cannot be read into Section 302 IPC by a Sessions Court (paras 14, 22–23).

(iv) The Trial Court was competent to impose life imprisonment, but not to direct that the appellants remain in prison till the rest of their life; the High Court erred in affirming the sentence without examining that competence (para 25).

(v) In fixing the term, the Court weighed the premeditated murder of three persons including two minor children and the manner of the crime against the long custody already undergone and the appellants' satisfactory jail conduct (paras 28–31).

(vi) Ordinary life imprisonment would be inadequate and imprisonment for the rest of their life disproportionate; 25 years' rigorous imprisonment without statutory remission meets the ends of justice (paras 32–34).

(paras 14–34)

Case Details: Naval Kishore v. State of Punjab (2026 INSC 1048)

Final Outcome: Appeal allowed in part; conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC affirmed; direction to "remain in prison till rest of their life" set aside; both appellants sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without the benefit of statutory remission.

Case: Naval Kishore & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1048

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. ___ of 2026, Diary No. 56431 of 2025)

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable

Date of Decision: 24 September 2026

Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi (author)

Relevant Acts & Sections: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 34, 45, 53, 302, 376AB, 376DA, 376DB; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 432 to 435; Constitution of India – Articles 72 and 161; Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018

Impugned Order: Judgment dated 12.12.2022 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA-D-759-DB-2014, affirming the Trial Court's judgment dated 26.04.2014 and sentencing order dated 28.04.2014 (paras 3, 3.1, 6)

Counsel: Ms. Sampa Sengupta Ray for the appellants; Mr. Vivek Jain, Additional Advocate General, and Mr. Siddhant Sharma for the State of Punjab (paras 9, 10)

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)

Key Holdings of the Supreme Court

• A Sessions Court cannot direct that a life convict shall remain in prison till the rest of his life, as that curtails the statutory remission and commutation powers (paras 19, 25).
• The power to impose a special category sentence (a fixed term beyond remission, or imprisonment till the end of life) belongs only to the High Courts and the Supreme Court (paras 18, 27).
• Where Parliament wanted life imprisonment to mean the remainder of natural life, it said so expressly, as in Sections 376AB, 376DA and 376DB IPC; Section 302 IPC contains no such language (paras 22–23).
• The High Court erred in affirming the sentence without examining the Trial Court's competence to impose it (paras 6.2, 25).
• Sentencing must balance the gravity of the crime with the circumstances of the accused, including custody undergone, jail conduct and the possibility of reformation (paras 27, 29–31).
• For the premeditated murder of three persons, including two minor children, 25 years' rigorous imprisonment without statutory remission was held proportionate (paras 28, 32, 34).

Brief Facts of the Case

According to the prosecution, a woman married to co-accused Ashok Kumar (accused No. 1) and her two minor daughters left her parents' house in Ludhiana on the evening of 27.12.2009 and did not return. The next morning their bodies were found near railway tracks in Ludhiana, with injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons, and an FIR under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against unknown persons (paras 4.1–4.3).

Ashok Kumar was arrested on 30.12.2009. On the basis of his statement, the appellants Jyoti Kumar (his brother) and Naval Kishore (his friend) were arrested on 31.12.2009. Blood-stained jackets, the weapon and the deceased woman's gold earrings were recovered on disclosure statements (paras 4.5–4.6).

The prosecution relied on last-seen evidence, an alleged extra-judicial confession disclosing a conspiracy driven by Ashok Kumar's suspicion about his wife's character and the paternity of the children and a plan to claim insurance money, finger impressions on recovered glass tumblers, and DNA evidence linking hair in the deceased woman's hand to Jyoti Kumar (para 4.7).

On 26.04.2014 the Trial Court convicted all three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. By order dated 28.04.2014 it sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life with a direction that they "remain in prison till rest of their life", plus a fine of Rs. 2,500 each (paras 3.1, 5).

The High Court dismissed the appeal on 12.12.2022 without considering the "rest of their life" direction (paras 6–6.2). On 10.11.2025 the Supreme Court recorded that the conviction did not warrant interference and confined the appeal to sentence; on 26.05.2026 it called for jail conduct reports (para 8).

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the Trial Court, while imposing imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC, was competent to direct that the appellants remain in prison for the remainder of their lives (para 12, Question A).
2. If not, what sentence should be imposed on the appellants (para 12, Question B).

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Appellants' case (para 9): Counsel did not challenge the conviction but argued that Section 302 IPC provides only death or life imprisonment, so the Trial Court went beyond the statute; the appellants had undergone a long period of custody with satisfactory conduct and sought release.

State's case (para 10): The State argued that the brutal murder of three persons, including two minor children, warranted no interference with a sentence of incarceration for the rest of the appellants' natural lives.

Life imprisonment and remission (paras 14–16): Section 302 IPC prescribes death or imprisonment for life. Life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of natural life, but it is subject to remission and commutation under Sections 432 to 435 Cr.P.C. and Articles 72 and 161. The question was whether a Court of Session can exclude that regime.

Special category sentence belongs to Constitutional Courts (paras 17–19): Swamy Shraddananda (2) evolved the special category sentence to fill the gap between death and ordinary life imprisonment. The Constitution Bench in V. Sriharan held that this power can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Kiran v. State of Karnataka applied the same rule to a Sessions Court direction for imprisonment till the end of natural life.

Ravinder Singh and Navas (paras 20–21): Ravinder Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) confirmed that a Sessions Court lacks power to impose a special category sentence. Navas v. State of Kerala does not support such power in a Sessions Court, but sets out the factors relevant to fixing the term.

Legislative choice in 2018 (paras 22–24): The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 expressly defined life imprisonment as the remainder of natural life in Sections 376AB, 376DA and 376DB. Section 302 IPC was not similarly amended, so a Sessions Court cannot read such a punishment into it; prescribing punishment is a legislative function.

Trial Court exceeded its competence (para 25): The Trial Court could impose life imprisonment but not the direction to remain in prison till the rest of their life, which in effect excludes remission. The High Court did not examine this, so interference was required.

Fixing the sentence (paras 27–32): The offence was the premeditated murder of three persons, including two minor children, by inflicting injuries on their throats and other body parts with sharp-edged weapons. As on 08.07.2026, Naval Kishore had undergone 12 years, 5 months and 20 days of actual custody and Jyoti Kumar 11 years, 6 months and 9 days, and their jail conduct was satisfactory. Ordinary life imprisonment would be inadequate, and imprisonment for the rest of their life disproportionate.

Final Outcome and Directions

• Question A answered in the negative: the Trial Court could impose life imprisonment but could not direct that the appellants remain in prison till the rest of their life (para 33).
• The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is affirmed (para 34).
• The direction requiring the appellants "to remain in prison till the rest of their life" is set aside (para 34).
• Both appellants are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without the benefit of any statutory remission (paras 33–34).
• The appeal is allowed in part; pending applications disposed of (paras 35–36).

Legal Principle Laid Down

A Court of Session, while sentencing an accused to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC, cannot direct that the convict shall remain in prison for the rest of his natural life, as such a direction curtails the remission and commutation powers under Sections 432 to 435 Cr.P.C. The special category sentence recognised in Swamy Shraddananda (2) and V. Sriharan, whether a fixed term without remission or imprisonment till the end of life, can be imposed only by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, after weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances (paras 18–19, 23–25, 27, 33).

Precedents Relied Upon

• Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 – special category sentence between death and ordinary life imprisonment (para 17).
• Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan, (2016) 7 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench) – special category sentence can be imposed only by the High Court and the Supreme Court (paras 18, 24).
• Kiran v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2863 – Sessions Court cannot direct life imprisonment till the end of natural life (para 19).
• Ravinder Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 323 – Sessions Court lacks power to impose a special category sentence (para 20).
• Navas alias Mulanavas v. State of Kerala, (2024) 14 SCC 82 – factors for fixing the term of a special category sentence (paras 21, 27).
• Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 – overruled in V. Sriharan on this point (para 18).

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.

Para 14: "However, significantly Section 302 IPC does not expressly provide that imprisonment for life shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of convict, unlike certain other provisions of the IPC which expressly provide for such a consequence."

Para 22: "Therefore, it is evident that when the Parliament intended the expression “imprisonment for life” to mean imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of convict, it used specific and unambiguous language to that effect."

Para 23: "Therefore, it would be impermissible to read into Section 302 IPC, a punishment, which the Parliament has expressly incorporated in other penal provisions and in doing so, the Sessions Court would be supplementing the punishment prescribed by the legislature."

Para 25: "... 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."

Para 29: "At the same time, sentencing is not an exercise which can be determined solely by the nature of the crime."

Para 34: "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."

Practical Impact of the Ruling

• For trial courts: A Sessions Judge sentencing under Section 302 IPC may impose death or life imprisonment, but must not add directions that the convict stay in jail till death or for a fixed term without remission.
• For convicts and defence counsel: Existing sentences carrying such directions from Sessions Courts can be challenged, as the direction is beyond the trial court's competence.
• For High Courts: While affirming a sentence in appeal, the High Court must examine whether the trial court had the power to impose it, and may itself fix a special category sentence where justified.
• For States: Unless a Constitutional Court has fixed a term without remission, the State's remission and commutation powers remain available for life convicts under Section 302 IPC.
• For sentencing generally: Custody already undergone, jail conduct and reformation prospects are relevant even in grave multiple-murder cases when fixing the term.

FAQs on Life Imprisonment Till Natural Life by Sessions Court

1. What did the Supreme Court hold in Naval Kishore v. State of Punjab?

It held that a Sessions Court cannot direct that a murder convict remain in prison till the rest of his life, set aside that direction, and sentenced the appellants to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment without remission while affirming their conviction (paras 25, 33–34).

2. Does life imprisonment mean imprisonment for the whole of the convict's life?

Yes, under Sections 45 and 53 IPC, but it remains subject to the remission and commutation powers under Sections 432 to 435 Cr.P.C. and Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution (para 15).

3. Who can impose a sentence of life imprisonment without remission?

Only the Constitutional Courts, that is the High Courts and the Supreme Court, as held in V. Sriharan and followed in Kiran v. State of Karnataka (paras 18–19, 27).

4. Why did the 2018 amendments to the IPC matter?

Because Parliament expressly defined life imprisonment as the remainder of natural life in Sections 376AB, 376DA and 376DB, but did not amend Section 302 IPC in that way, so such a punishment cannot be read into Section 302 by a Sessions Court (paras 22–23).

5. How did the Court arrive at 25 years?

It weighed the premeditated murder of three persons including two minor children against the more than 11 and 12 years of custody already undergone and the appellants' satisfactory jail conduct (paras 28, 30–32).

Keywords: 2026 INSC 1048, Naval Kishore v. State of Punjab, life imprisonment till natural life, Sessions Court power, special category sentence, Swamy Shraddananda, V. Sriharan, remission and commutation, Section 302 IPC, Section 432 Cr.P.C., 25 years without remission, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Justice Aravind Kumar, sentencing, Supreme Court judgment

Related on LegalTaxGuru

• More Supreme Court Reportable judgments
• Civil/Criminal articles

Download Judgment PDF – Naval Kishore v. State of Punjab

Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 1048 – Naval Kishore & Anr. v. State of Punjab (Diary No. 56431 of 2025) – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).