Legal Review and Analysis of Kiran vs The State of Karnataka 2025 INSC 1453
Case Synopsis
Kiran v. The State of Karnataka (2025 INSC 1453)
Synopsis : The Supreme Court upheld a murder conviction based on reliable dying declarations but curtailed the sentencing overreach of the Sessions Court. It held that a trial court cannot mandate that a life sentence be served without remission or deny the statutory set-off for pre-conviction detention, as these powers are reserved for higher constitutional courts and the executive, respectively.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Citation: 2025 INSC 1453
Decided on: December 18, 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India.
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment interprets and applies the following legal provisions:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Punishment for murder.
Sections 428, 432 to 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Concerning set-off of pre-conviction detention period and the powers of remission and commutation of sentences.
Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India – Powers of the President and the Governor to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Facts of the Case
On January 1, 2014, the appellant-accused, a relative by marriage, set on fire a widowed woman with five children after she resisted his persistent sexual advances. She suffered 60% burns and succumbed to her injuries after ten days. Key eyewitnesses, including the victim's father (PW-1) and daughter (PW-7), turned hostile during the trial. However, the prosecution successfully established guilt through:
The testimony of neighbors (PW-8 and PW-24) who saw the accused fleeing the scene.
Two dying declarations: one recorded by a Head Constable (PW-28, Exhibit P-27) and another recorded by a Magistrate (PW-21, Exhibit P-23) in a question-answer format, both of which clearly implicated the accused and detailed the motive.
The Trial Court and the High Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life "till the end of his natural life," additionally directing that he would not be entitled to the benefit of set-off under Section 428 CrPC for the period of detention undergone during the trial.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC was justified based on the evidence, particularly the dying declarations?
Whether a Sessions Court has the jurisdiction to impose a sentence of life imprisonment "till the end of natural life" and to restrict the statutory benefit of set-off under Section 428 CrPC?
Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
The Supreme Court's reasoning is structured as follows:
Upholding the Conviction: The Court meticulously examined the evidence, noting the hostility of close relatives. It found the conviction soundly based on the credible and corroborated dying declarations recorded by both a police officer and a Magistrate. The medical evidence and testimonies of independent witnesses (neighbors) firmly established the appellant's presence at the scene and his act of setting the victim ablaze.
Sentencing Authority of Sessions Court: This was the core legal issue. The Court held that a Sessions Court lacks the jurisdiction to pass an order that a life sentence must be served till the end of natural life and to deny set-off under Section 428 CrPC.
Life Imprisonment and Remission: The Court reaffirmed that a sentence of "imprisonment for life" means incarceration for the convict's natural life. However, the power to grant remission or commutation under Sections 432-435 CrPC and Articles 72 & 161 of the Constitution is vested with the executive (government). This executive power cannot be curtailed or ousted by an order of the Sessions Court.
Alternative Sentencing (Life without Remission): The Court referred to precedents like Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) and Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016), which created an alternative sentencing option of "life imprisonment without remission" to bridge the gap between a de facto 14-year term and the death penalty. This power, however, was explicitly restricted to Constitutional Courts (the Supreme Court and High Courts) and is not available to Sessions Courts.
Mandatory Set-Off under Section 428 CrPC: The Court held that Section 428 CrPC mandatorily entitles an accused to set-off the period of detention undergone during investigation, inquiry, or trial against the ultimate sentence. A trial court has no discretion to deny this statutory benefit.
4. Analysis: Core Principle of the Judgment
The Central Legal Problem
The judgment addresses the recurring conflict between the desire of trial courts to impose the severest possible punishment for heinous crimes and the strict legal limitations on their sentencing powers as defined by statute and superior court precedents.
The Supreme Court's Resolution – The Core Principle:
The sentencing jurisdiction of courts is hierarchically structured and bound by statute. While a Sessions Court can impose the penalty of "imprisonment for life," it cannot modify the inherent incidents of that sentence. It has no power to (a) explicitly order that the life sentence be served without the possibility of remission, as this encroaches upon the executive's constitutional and statutory authority, or (b) deny the mandatory statutory benefit of set-off for pre-conviction detention. Such enhanced sentencing modalities are the exclusive domain of Constitutional Courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) in exceptional circumstances, as a substitute for the death penalty.
The Court clarified that its decision does not trivialize the crime, which it described as "heinous, dastardly and brutal." Instead, it reinforces the rule of law and the separation of powers, ensuring that each institution (judiciary vs. executive) operates within its legally demarcated sphere. The possibility of remission remains subject to the government's policy and the constitutional powers of clemency.
5. Final Outcome and Directions
The Supreme Court partly allowed the criminal appeal.
The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and other offences was upheld.
The sentence was modified: The appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC, to be served concurrently with sentences for other offences.
The illegal directives of the Sessions Court were deleted:
The condition that life imprisonment be "till the end of natural life" was set aside.
The denial of set-off under Section 428 CrPC was set aside. The appellant is entitled to have his pre-conviction detention period counted against his sentence.The appellant would be eligible to be considered for remission/commutation in due course, as per the law and policy applied by the appropriate government.
6. MCQs Based on the Judgment
Question 1: According to the Supreme Court's judgment in Kiran v. State of Karnataka, which of the following courts possesses the authority to impose a sentence of "life imprisonment without the possibility of remission"?
A. The Sessions Court and the High Court.
B. Only the Supreme Court of India.
C. Only the Constitutional Courts, i.e., the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
D. The Sessions Court with the prior approval of the State Government.
Question 2: In the aforementioned judgment, the Supreme Court held that the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the CrPC is?
A. A discretionary power of the trial court based on the gravity of the crime.
B. A mandatory statutory right of the accused that the trial court cannot deny.
C. Applicable only if the accused has been detained in judicial custody.
D. Not applicable in cases where the conviction is for an offence under Section 302 IPC.