What is/would be the meaning of 'Imprisonment until Death' for Sayedee?
AFTER the pronouncement of the operating part of the Judgment of Delwar Hossain Sayedee by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh some questions have arisen among general people like us. What is the meaning of 'Imprisonment until Death' for Sayedee? How long can Sayedee be kept in jail for the heinous offence which has been proved by the Court? As a lawyer, I would like to start this academic discussion with our readers. Before going into the meaning of Sayedee's sentence of 'imprisonment until death,' I would like to state the general contentions of relevant sections of our Penal Code (Cr. P.C) regarding life imprisonment.
Section 57 of the Cr. P.C provides that in calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for thirty years. On account of this provision it is generally believed that the sentence of life imprisonment means imprisonment for thirty years. Close scrutiny reveals that this provision is applicable only for the purpose of 'calculating the fractions of terms of punishment.' Now, a question arises as to when the need for 'calculating the fractions of terms of punishment' occurs. In Section 511 of Cr. P.C, it is stated that “whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.”
Let us see an example for more clarification. In Section 124A of Penal Code punishment for sedition is imprisonment for life or any shorter term, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. But if a person is found guilty of an offence of attempt to commit sedition then there is no clear provision of law by which punishment can be imposed. In that case, as per Section 511, punishments have to be imposed by 'calculating the fractions of terms of punishment,' i.e. in accordance with Section 57. So as per this section it has to be assumed that imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to rigorous imprisonment for thirty years, and after 'calculating the fractions of terms of punishment' (i.e. 30 years) the highest punishment for the attempt to commit sedition will be 15 years.
Now the question is whether there is any chance for remission of the punishment of Delwar Hossain Sayedee. The Supreme Court, on 17.09.2014, commuted the death sentence of Sayeedee to 'imprisonment till death' for his crimes against humanity committed during the country's Liberation War in 1971. On our plain understanding, it means that Sayeedee will have to remain imprisoned 'for the rest of his natural life' and his punishment may not come within the explanation of the above discussion regarding Sections 57 and 511 of the Penal Code. The apex Court, by its articulation, made it clear that he has to pass the rest of his life in jail. But the same apex Court, earlier in Quader Mollah's judgment, clarified that “Section 57 does not say that imprisonment for life shall be deemed to be imprisonment for thirty years for all purposes nor does it enable to draw any such inference. So, prison authorities are bound to keep the accused persons who are sentenced to imprisonment for life in jail treating such sentence for the whole of the remaining of the convicted person's natural life unless he has earned recursions for good conduct. In other words it is not for a definite period.”
A new question that arises is whether 'life imprisonment' and 'imprisonment until death' bear similar meaning in the context of the trial of war criminals in Bangladesh. We still do not have any distinction of these wordings. Similarly, the people too should know the meaning of 'recursions for good conduct.' What does it mean and what it would mean in future? In the Quader Mollah judgment we find no clarifications on the point of recursions for good conduct either made or defined by the apex Court; but, the apex Court defined the meaning of life imprisonment with a condition.
In absence of any distinction between 'life imprisonment' and 'imprisonment until death,' I would like to predict a potential event that may occur in future. If Delwar Hossain Sayedee shows good conduct in jail and at one point applies to the jail authority for remission of his punishment then what will happen? In that case, whether the jail authority has any option for remission of his punishment in accordance with Quader Mollah's judgment since our apex Court has decided that the convicted has to remain in jail till his natural death unless he shows repeated good conduct. On such application by Sayedee what can the jail authorities do? Should they then calculate the terms of 'life imprisonment' or 'imprisonment until death' in accordance with Section 57 of the Cr. P.C?
However, there may be an answer in future; but it may depend upon the government's order as Section 20(3) of International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973, states that “the sentence awarded under this Act shall be carried out in accordance with the orders of the government.” In this situation, the government may consider the application for remission of punishment of Sayedee because of the fact that there is no provision which defines the meaning of 'life imprisonment' or 'imprisonment until death' under International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973. In this context Justice S.K. Sinha's observation in Quader Mollah's judgment is relevant. His Lordship observed: “In the Act, 1973, the meaning of 'life imprisonment has not been defined or explained.” In the absence of any explanation, we may consider the provisions contained in the Penal Code. Now there may be a number of inferences made by the government but, among all others, the government may infer from Quader Mollah's judgment and it might then be decided that “he (Sayedee) has earned recursions for good conduct.”
The writer is Advocate, Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
E-mail: [email protected]
Comments