The Supreme Court in the case Nikhil Shivaji Golait v Union of India & Anr observed the minimum mandatory sentence of life imprisonment till natural life section 376DB of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court further issued the notice in a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the same. Even of 40 years or 50 years of imprisonment or more than that and thus the said sentence is totally disproportionate to the nature of offence which was alleged against the convict as the life sentence for natural life could be a very long sentence, stated by Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, who filed the petition. The petition further stated that there is chance of reformation of the convict and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment and in most cases, it provided minimum term of imprisonment of 20 years/ 25 years/ 30 years and even the Hon’ble Court has accepted the fact, the large number of judgments have shown that even in cases of rape and murder of minor girl, of sentencing jurisprudence of this country reforming is one of the important aspects. Under Section 376DB of the IPC, 1860 the prescription of such life sentence for the offence is unconstitutional as the reason for being it is unconstitutional is that it completely takes away the chance of reformation of the individual, stated by the petitioner in the plea. Section 376DB amended in the year 2018 prescribes that if a person is convicted of gang rape of a minor girl, then the court has no option, but to impose the aforesaid sentence or the higher sentence of death sentence of a girl who is less than 12 years of age. The Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and the Justice Surya Kant by observed and noted that On the sentence which the leg has been prescribed, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal has placed on record Writ Petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India which challenges the imposition for imprisonment of the remainder of the natural life on the constitutional challenge on the sentence which has been imposed, the bench ordered of issuing a notice. The Court further stated that there is no merit in the challenge to the conviction as the petitioner has been convicted of offense and has been sentenced to suffer the remainder of his natural life which is punishable u/s 376 DB, IPC with regards to the findings.
