‘Quite harsh’: Death sentence commuted, Supreme Court questions convicts’ 35-year jail term without remission

Convicts were initially sentenced to death

According to the order passed on May 6, 2026, the petitioners had been put to trial for offences punishable under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 376(2)(g) (gang rape), and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), all read with Section 34 (common intention).

The trial court found both the accused guilty and awarded them the death penalty, considering the gravity of the offences.

The convicts subsequently appealed before the Orissa High Court. While the high court commuted the death sentence, it directed that the two men undergo 35 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission, meaning they would not be entitled to any statutory reduction of sentence during that period.

Such sentences, often referred to as “special category” punishments, have increasingly emerged in cases where constitutional courts seek an alternative to capital punishment while still ensuring prolonged incarceration.

Supreme Court flags proportionality concerns

• The Supreme Court’s observations suggest that the bench may examine whether the punishment imposed by the high court struck a legally sustainable balance between the severity of the crime and the principles governing sentencing jurisprudence.
• The bench specifically recorded that it wanted to hear the state government on “this part of the High Court’s order”, referring to the direction denying remission for 35 years.
• The issue of remission has remained a sensitive and evolving area in criminal law.
• In a series of earlier judgments, the Supreme Court has upheld the power of constitutional courts to impose fixed-term sentences without remission in exceptional circumstances, especially in cases where the court decides against confirming the death penalty.
• However, courts have also repeatedly held that sentencing must remain proportionate and should not become arbitrary or excessively punitive.
• Legal observers say the present case could provide another opportunity for the apex court to revisit the limits of judicial discretion in crafting such sentences.

Notice issued to Odisha govt

• After condoning the delay in filing the special leave petition, the Supreme Court bench issued notice to the state of Odisha, returnable in four weeks.
• The court also permitted “dasti service” in addition to the ordinary mode of service, allowing the petitioners to directly serve a copy of the proceedings upon the respondent state.
• Liberty was further granted to the petitioners to serve notice through the standing counsel representing the state government before the Supreme Court.
• The petitioners were represented during the hearing by advocate Manika Tripathy.

Wider implications for sentencing policy

Though the Supreme Court has not stayed the sentence at this stage, its prima facie remark describing the punishment as “quite harsh” is likely to draw attention within legal circles because fixed non-remittable prison terms have increasingly been used as an intermediate sentencing model between life imprisonment and the death penalty.

The top court’s eventual ruling may have implications beyond the present case, particularly on how far high courts can go while imposing lengthy incarceration without remission after commuting capital punishment.

The matter is expected to be taken up again after four weeks once the state government files its response.