The Bombay High Court on Monday (November 10) upheld a trial court’s order convicting a security guard of a Mumbai high-rise for murdering a 25-year-old corporate lawyer in her flat in 2012. It also dismissed a plea by the victim, Pallavi Purkayastha’s father and the Maharashtra government seeking the death penalty for the convict.The court instead sentenced Sajjad Mughal alias Sajjad Pathan to rigorous imprisonment for life, specifying that it will mean imprisonment till the end of his natural life.The court also took into consideration that Pathan had escaped in 2016, when he was granted parole and was re-arrested 1.5 years after a search. It said that Pathan, therefore, will not be entitled to the grant of parole or furlough.How is life imprisonment different from imprisonment for life till the end of natural life?Under the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, the punishment for various crimes like murder has been imprisonment for life, interpreted to mean the person’s whole life in prison. Provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, however, provided the appropriate government’s power to decide on whether it wants to suspend, remit or commute the sentence imposed by any court, as per sections 432 and 433.Section 433A, however, also specified that a person sentenced to life imprisonment cannot be released till they have completed at least fourteen years in jail, as part of their sentence. Thus, many convicts sentenced to life imprisonment seek remission by filing applications before the prison department seeking to be released. This is then decided by the state, depending on the circumstances of the case. In many cases, this means that the person is released after spending 14 years in jail.However, in cases where it was felt that 14 years is not sufficient punishment for some crimes, even as the crime is not ‘rarest of rare’ to warrant the death penalty, the Supreme Court has said that it can ‘impose a restriction’ on the convict’s right to remission after 14 years, by directing that the person shall remain in prison for the remainder of his life.The courts have also observed that death sentences require a ‘higher proof’, or the caution to be exercised while sentencing someone to death, especially in cases where there is only circumstantial evidence. In several judgments, the court may choose to impose a restriction on remitting a convict’s life sentence ‘by way of a via media between life imprisonment simpliciter and the death sentence’, It may thus direct him to spend the remainder of his life in jail, or a specific period in jail, like 20 or 25 or 30 years, as specified. The Constitutional powers, however, of the President and Governor to grant pardon, remain, even in such cases.Story continues below this adThe new criminal law, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced the IPC, lays a distinction between ‘imprisonment for life’ as listed in some sections, and ‘imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person’s natural life’ as listed in other sections.What does a sentence of life imprisonment without parole or furlough mean?Parole and furlough are provisions of the penal system, where prisoners can seek to be released from jail for a specific time before returning to serve the remaining sentence. Both parole and furlough grant a convict temporary release from judicial custody.Parole is granted in case of a specific emergency, like the death or ill health of a prisoner’s family member, whereas furlough can be granted without a specific reason, to enable to convict to maintain continuity with family life and integration with society.The courts have specified that parole and furlough cannot be claimed as a legal right, and these can be refused to certain categories of prisoners.Story continues below this adIn some cases, courts have set aside adverse police reports to grant furlough to prisoners, acknowledging the rights of condemned convicts to meet their ailing parents. The courts have emphasised the rehabilitative role of parole and furlough and the need for these provisions to reintegrate prisoners in society, their scope as mentioned in various human rights doctrines.However, in exceptional cases where a convict has committed a crime while temporarily released, or escaped, or misused the liberty, the courts have denied such permissions citing ‘risk to society’.In this case, Pathan was serving life imprisonment in Nashik jail after the sessions court convicted him in 2014. He had been in jail since his arrest in August 2012, and sought parole in 2016, citing his mother’s ill health. He had sought permission to travel to his hometown in Jammu and Kashmir and was permitted to do so, as per existing provisions at that time. However, he did not return to the jail on the date specified, and the Nashik jail authorities informed the police. The Mumbai police formed several teams, and he was re-arrested only 19 months later.While seeking enhancement in his punishment, the state and the victim’s father made submissions before the High Court regarding Mughal’s conduct to evade the punishment while seeking enhancement in his punishment. The court considered this conduct to deny him any permission for furlough or parole. He will therefore not be released from jail for either furlough or parole, the court said.Story continues below this adHave courts denied parole or furlough to convicts in other cases?In the past, the courts have refused to grant parole or furlough in some cases, citing exceptional circumstances, the nature of the offence, and other factors. These include terror cases, or other cases where convicts are on the death row, or have their sentences commuted to life after being on death row for many years.This September, the Bombay refused interim relief in pleas for furlough to two sisters whose death sentences for kidnapping and killing children were commuted to life in 2022. Seema Gavit and her sister Renuka Shinde, presently lodged at Yerawada Central Prison in Pune, had sought release on furlough, as they have been in jail since their arrest in 1996. During the hearing, the high court asked the state if they could be considered entitled to parole and furlough, as their sentences were commuted.In the case of the convicts in former PM Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination case, they were not granted parole or furlough for over two decades of their jail terms, before their subsequent release.