The Supreme Court (SC) on December 1 delivered its verdict in the review petition of the Ataur Mridha case (Criminal Review Petition 82/2017). In the short order, it sought to clear the confusion that arose following its verdict in 2017 on the tenure of life imprisonment.

Earlier in 2017, the SC had interpreted life imprisonment to be the whole of a convict's natural life by a plain reading of sections 45 and 53 of the Penal Code (PC), 1860 (Ataur Mridha v State, Criminal Appeal 15/2020, p 18). That verdict, inter alia, relied on the Indian SC's decision in Sambhaji v State ((1974) 1 SCC 196) that a person sentenced to life imprisonment may be detained in prison for life. The verdict ignored section 35A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898, which obliges a court to deduct the total time an accused has been in custody during the pendency of their trial. The verdict further assumed that the legislature drafted and amended this provision without understanding PC sections 45, 53 and 57 and CrPC section 401 (Ataur Mridha, pp 85-86). Hence, it seemed that the SC effectively created a new law in the guise of statutory interpretation, which is tantamount to 'radical judicial law-making' (Ridwanul Hoque, 'Constitutionalism and the Concept of Whole- life Sentence in Bangladesh' (BILIA, May 2017)).

Upon review, the SC finally reverted to its decision in Rokia Begum v The State ((2015) 4 SCOB (AD) 20). By harmoniously interpreting PC sections 45, 53, 55 and 57 and CrPC section 35A, it held that life imprisonment would mean rigorous imprisonment for 30 years. It further held that while awarding sentences, if a court or tribunal, or the International Crimes Tribunal constituted under the International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973, orders for the accused to be sentenced to imprisonment till their natural death, they will not be entitled to any remission of their sentence. It is speculated that the court may have been wary that the tenure of life imprisonment may be lenient in certain cases. The SC had also expressed similar concerns in Rokiya Begum (para 24) but refrained from elaborating on it. Hence, this verdict seems to create two categories of sentences – life imprisonment and imprisonment till death.

While any comment on the merit of the arguments forwarded by the lawyers, the amicus curiae appointed by the court and the court's reasoning will be premature before the full text of the verdict is released, the following points are worth noting:

The appeal verdict was based on a plain textual reading of the relevant provisions. It did not take into account the progress that has taken place worldwide in the recent past. Globally, penal policies now have a reformatory approach. Hence, our criminal justice system should move away from awarding any punishment that deprives the accused of the opportunity of reforming and reintegrating themselves back into the society. The review verdict seems to correct the mistaken approach the court had taken earlier. PC sections 55 and 55A, CrPC section 35A, chapter 21 of the Jail Code, apart from other statutory and constitutional provisions, have the provisions to reduce and remit the life sentences of the accused. 

The writer is the Bangladesh Junior Legal Analyst of iProbono.