The Karnataka High Court has ruled that only the Supreme Court or a High Court can impose the sentence of "imprisonment till last breath". This means that trial courts cannot impose this sentence, even if they find the accused guilty of a heinous crime such as murder.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that only the Supreme Court or a High Court can impose the sentence of "imprisonment till last breath". This means that trial courts cannot impose this sentence, even if they find the accused guilty of a heinous crime such as murder.

The court made this ruling in a case involving a man named Harish, who was convicted of murdering his wife's lover. The trial court sentenced Harish to "imprisonment till last breath", but the High Court overturned this sentence and reduced it to life imprisonment.

The High Court said that the sentence of "imprisonment till last breath" is a "special category sentence" that can only be imposed by a higher court. This is because such a sentence is irreversible, and there is no possibility of the accused being released from prison even if they show good conduct or express remorse.

The court said that the power to impose this sentence should only be vested in higher courts, as they have the experience and expertise to decide whether such a sentence is warranted in a particular case. Trial courts, on the other hand, may not have the necessary experience or expertise to make such a decision.

The court's ruling is a welcome clarification of the law, as it ensures that the sentence of "imprisonment till last breath" is not imposed by lower courts in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. It also sends a message that even the most heinous crimes should not be punished with a sentence that is irreversible.

The ruling is also significant because it comes at a time when there is growing concern about the death penalty in India. The court's ruling makes it clear that the death penalty is not the only option for punishing the most serious crimes, and that there are other, more humane sentences that can be imposed.

The ruling is likely to have a significant impact on the way that trials are conducted in India. It will mean that trial courts will have to be more careful about the sentences that they impose, and that they will not be able to sentence an accused person to "imprisonment till last breath" without the approval of a higher court. This is a positive development, as it will help to ensure that justice is served in a fair and equitable manner.

The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that only the Supreme Court or a High Court can impose a sentence of "imprisonment till last breath." This means that a trial court does not have the authority to impose this type of sentence.

The court made this ruling in the case of Harish and Lokesh, who were convicted of murdering D R Kumar in 2012. The trial court sentenced Harish to "imprisonment till last breath," while Lokesh was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Harish and Lokesh appealed their sentences to the High Court, arguing that the trial court did not have the authority to impose a sentence of "imprisonment till last breath." The High Court agreed with their argument, and reduced Harish's sentence to life imprisonment.

The High Court's ruling is significant because it clarifies the law on who has the authority to impose a sentence of "imprisonment till last breath." This type of sentence is a very serious one, and it is important that it is only imposed by a court that has the proper authority.

The High Court's ruling also sends a message that trial courts should be careful when imposing sentences. They should only impose sentences that are within their authority, and they should be aware of the potential consequences of their decisions.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the High Court's ruling:

* Only the Supreme Court or a High Court can impose a sentence of "imprisonment till last breath."

* Trial courts do not have the authority to impose this type of sentence.

* The High Court's ruling clarifies the law on this issue.

* Trial courts should be careful when imposing sentences, and they should be aware of the potential consequences of their decisions.

The High Court's ruling is a welcome development, as it ensures that this type of serious sentence is only imposed by a court that has the proper authority. This will help to protect the rights of the accused, and it will ensure that the law is applied fairly.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that only the Supreme Court or a High Court can impose the sentence of "imprisonment till last breath". This means that trial courts cannot impose this sentence, even if they find the accused guilty of a heinous crime such as murder.

The court made this ruling in a case involving a man named Harish, who was convicted of murdering his wife's lover. The trial court sentenced Harish to "imprisonment till last breath", but the High Court overturned this sentence and reduced it to life imprisonment.

The High Court said that the sentence of "imprisonment till last breath" is a "special category sentence" that can only be imposed by a higher court. This is because such a sentence effectively takes away the right of the convict to seek remission of their sentence after they have served a certain number of years in prison.

The court also said that the sentence of "imprisonment till last breath" is not a mandatory punishment for murder. In other words, even if a person is convicted of murder, they do not automatically have to be sentenced to "imprisonment till last breath". The court said that the sentencing judge must consider all the relevant factors, such as the gravity of the crime, the accused's criminal history, and their chances of rehabilitation, before deciding on the appropriate sentence.

This ruling by the Karnataka High Court is significant because it clarifies the law on the sentence of "imprisonment till last breath". It also sends a message to trial courts that they cannot impose this sentence lightly.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the ruling:

* Only the Supreme Court or a High Court can impose the sentence of "imprisonment till last breath".

* The sentence of "imprisonment till last breath" is not a mandatory punishment for murder.

* The sentencing judge must consider all the relevant factors before deciding on the appropriate sentence.

This ruling is a welcome clarification of the law on a complex issue. It will help to ensure that the sentence of "imprisonment till last breath" is only imposed in the most serious cases, and that the rights of the accused are protected.