Power to commute sentence by the appropriate Government (Section 433 of CrPc)

Legal provisions regarding power to commute sentence by the appropriate Government under section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

According to Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute;

Image Source: media.oregonlive.com

(a) A sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code, 1860;

(b) A sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine;

(c) A sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced, or for fine;

(d) a sentence of simple imprisonment or fine.

Generally, while commuting sentence for fine, the Courts usually impose conditions non-compliance of which may revive the sentence. Sections 54, 55 and 55-A of the Indian Penal Code confer similar powers on the Government.

The power of remission or commutation of sentence vests in appropriate Government. The High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction and confirming conviction and sentence awarded by lower court cannot postpone execution of sentence till filing of application for remission or commutation of sentence.

Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases:

As per Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.

A life convict covered by Section 433-A cannot invoke for his premature release under Sections 432 and 433 if he has not completed 14 years of actual imprisonment without any remission.

In State of Haryana v. Вhup Singh and Others, it was observed that the Court therein did not have any occasion to consider the legality and/or validity of the policy decision of the State vis-a-vis the Prison Rules. The right to ask for remission of sentence by a life convict would be under the law as was prevailing on the date on which the judgment of conviction and sentence was passed.

If the executive instructions cannot be given a retrospective effect being not in consonance with the Prisoners’ Rules framed under the Prison Act, we fail to understand as to how the said decision constitutes a binding precedent. A decision as is well-known is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced there-from.

Release of convicts depends upon the Government policy in that regard. Court cannot direct Government to release convicts, but it can only direct State Government to consider cases of convicts for release. The question of release is considered as per policy decision as was applicable on the date of conviction, but not on the basis of subsequent policy decision.