Supreme Court Says Trial Courts Cannot Deny Convicts Right To Remission

The Supreme Court has held that the right to seek remission is both a constitutional and a statutory right, and cannot be taken away or curtailed by an inferior court such as a sessions court.

A Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih said that any sentence of life imprisonment qualified to exclude remission is beyond the jurisdiction of a trial court and can only be directed by a constitutional court.

Court was hearing an appeal filed by Amjad Khan, who was convicted of murdering his wife and two children. The trial court had sentenced him to life imprisonment for each of the three murders, but specified that the sentence would mean imprisonment “till the death of the accused”.

The Supreme Court modified the sentence, holding that the trial court could not have imposed such a restriction on the convict’s right to seek remission.

Why did the Supreme Court modify the life imprisonment sentence?

The Bench said a trial court does not have the authority to qualify a sentence of life imprisonment to mean imprisonment till the death of the accused, as such a direction effectively curtails the statutory and constitutional rights of a convict to seek remission.

Court pointed out that the power to impose a modified sentence beyond the standard life term, which excludes the possibility of remission, lies exclusively with the high court and the Supreme Court as constitutional courts.

“However, the qualification of the ‘life imprisonment’ with ‘till death of the accused’ is not warranted in terms of Section 302 of the IPC,” the Bench said.

It noted that over the years, the high court and the Supreme Court, while substituting a death penalty with life imprisonment, have exercised discretion depending on the facts and circumstances of each case by qualifying the sentence to mean a certain number of years without remission.

“In other words, instead of imposing death penalty, the high court or this Court directs that the accused-convict must complete a certain number of years before he can seek release,” Court said.

Such sentences, it added, can be imposed only by constitutional courts such as the high court or the Supreme Court.

How does a life sentence affect the right to remission?

The Bench said that by directing that Amjad Khan’s life imprisonment would mean imprisonment till his death, the trial court had effectively denied him the opportunity to seek remission.

Court observed that remission is permissible under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, which allow an appropriate application to be made before the President of India or the Governor of the State respectively.

The convict would also have a statutory right to seek remission by making an application under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [now Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], read with its relevant provisions, Court said.

The Bench relied on earlier judgments, including Kiran v State of Karnataka (2025), where the Supreme Court had held that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entire life of the convict, subject to remission and commutation under the CrPC and Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution.

Court had also held that these rights cannot be curtailed by a sessions court.

What happened in the Amjad Khan case?

According to the prosecution, on the night of August 9, 2018, Khan’s wife and two children were found dead with injuries at their home.

An FIR was registered against Khan on August 10, 2018, at Police Station Chakrabhata in Bilaspur district under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [now Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)]. He was taken into custody on suspicion of the murders the following evening.

The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. The trial court relied on the last-seen theory, Khan’s unexplained absence and the recovery of the weapon and clothes.

It concluded that Khan, allegedly driven by financial difficulties, had murdered his wife and two children.

The trial court convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment for each of the three murders, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The trial court observed, “It is noteworthy that the accused Amjad Khan has not only killed his wife but also his two small innocent children, therefore in this case life imprisonment will mean till the death of the accused Amjad Khan.”

The high court subsequently dismissed his appeal. It relied on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [now Section 109 of the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)], and held that Khan had failed to explain the deaths that had occurred within his own household and his absence at the relevant time.

What have earlier Supreme Court judgments said?

The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v State of Karnataka (2008), where a three-judge Bench recognised a special category of cases in which the death penalty could be substituted with imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 14 years, while keeping the sentence beyond the application of remission.

The Constitution Bench in Union of India v V Sriharan (2016) considered whether such a special category of sentence could be imposed. It held that the power to impose a modified punishment providing for a specific term of incarceration or imprisonment till the end of the convict’s life as an alternative to the death penalty could be exercised only by the high court and the Supreme Court, and not by an inferior court.

The Bench also referred to Shiva Kumar v State of Karnataka (2023), where the Supreme Court clarified that the observations of the Constitution Bench in Sriharan could not be read narrowly.

It further referred to Sukhdev Yadav Pehalwan v State of (NCT of Delhi) (2025), which dealt with the question of whether a convict who had completed a fixed term of life imprisonment without remission was entitled to release on completion of that sentence.

Decision of the Court

The Bench noted that the high court had not discussed the nature of the sentence imposed by the trial court.

“Having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged against the appellant herein,” Court modified the sentence from life imprisonment “till the death of the accused” to “life imprisonment, that is to say, twenty years without any remission”.

The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgments of the high court and the sessions court.

Case Title: Amjad Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment: September 18, 2026