The Supreme Court has held that a Sessions Court can award imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but cannot direct that a convict must remain in prison until the end of their natural life by excluding the statutory remission and commutation framework.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered the judgment on September 24, 2026, while partly allowing the criminal appeal filed by Naval Kishore and Jyoti Kumar against their conviction in the case concerning the deaths of three persons, including two minor children.
Background
The case arose from the deaths of Pinki @ Simran and her two daughters near the railway tracks at Sandhu Nagar, Ludhiana, in December 2009. The prosecution relied on several circumstances, including recoveries following disclosure statements, eyewitness evidence, extra-judicial confessions and forensic material.
The Trial Court convicted all three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and imposed life imprisonment, additionally directing them “to remain in prison till rest of their life.” The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2022.
The Supreme Court had earlier indicated that the conviction did not require interference, but separately examined whether the Sessions Court was legally competent to impose the direction requiring imprisonment for the remainder of natural life.
The Court examined the distinction between ordinary life imprisonment and a special category sentence that excludes remission. Referring to Swamy Shraddananda (2), V. Sriharan and Kiran, the Bench noted that such special-category sentencing power belongs to Constitutional Courts and not to a Sessions Court.
The Court held:“We are of the considered 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.”
The Bench also considered the appellants’ period of incarceration and prison conduct. As of July 8, 2026, Naval Kishore had undergone 12 years, 5 months and 20 days in custody, while Jyoti Kumar had undergone 11 years, 6 months and 9 days. Their conduct certificates showed satisfactory behaviour and compliance with prison rules.
While considering the appropriate sentence, the Supreme Court observed:
“Therefore, 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.”
The Court consequently modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without the benefit of statutory remission. The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was affirmed, while the direction requiring the appellants to remain imprisoned for the rest of their lives was set aside.
The appeal was accordingly allowed in part.
Case Details:
Case Title: Naval Kishore & Anr. v. State of Punjab
Judge: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Decision Date: September 24, 2026
-300x169.webp)
